( I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.
I seek leave to move a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 20 June 2018 relating to consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter; namely, a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 20 June 18 relating to consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.
I am moving this motion in order to give senators the opportunity to suspend standing orders to debate a motion to, frankly, remedy what was passed yesterday in this chamber.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Yes, we will. I'll take the interjection from Senator Macdonald. We will keep trying it again, because we actually believe that the Senate should do its job. The Senate should do its job, mate, which is actually to seek to amend legislation and debate it, not to act like an arm of the executive. We were sent here to legislate, and yesterday the government, along with their mates Senator Rex Patrick and Centre Alliance, who appear to roll over—every time Senator Cormann asks Senator Patrick to jump, he just says, 'How high?' He's a Lib. He is nothing but a Lib. Senator Rex Patrick is nothing but a Lib who is happy to walk in here and do what Senator Nick Xenophon would never have done. Senator Storer put a statement out yesterday, and it was very measured, I would have to say, but it was also a statement which told the truth, which is that Senator Nick Xenophon would never have done what Senator Patrick agreed with Senator Cormann to do, and that is to do over the Senate. This is $144 billion worth of tax cuts that they don't want to debate. This is supposed to be one of the centrepieces of your economic plan, and you don't even have the spine to debate it properly. You come in here and you try an ambush in order to make sure the Senate can't debate amendments. What an extraordinary proposition—that we are sent here in this place, but we want 30 minutes debate on $144 billion worth of tax cuts! What I find extraordinary—
We find this extraordinary!
The minister, who is a serial misleader of the parliament, continues to interject. But we'll come to you later.
Order! Senator Wong, there is a point of order. I will call Senator Birmingham and then come to you, Senator O'Sullivan.
Mr President, that is a clear reflection upon another member of this Senate. Senator Wong obviously knows better than that and should clearly withdraw.
Mr President, as always, I will withdraw if you ask me to. The minister herself has conceded that she misled on five occasions.
On the point of order, Senator Birmingham, in my view, and having had advice confirming it from the Clerk, that is not a personal imputation on a senator, but I will remind all senators that, particularly on days like today, we should step back from personal imputations or impugning other senators. Otherwise, today will get more difficult than it needs to be.
The motion I am seeking to move to suspend standing orders—a motion the government doesn't even want to debate; pretty interesting, isn't it?—would enable this Senate to properly consider the message from the House of Representatives. That's all. From the roaring and the interjections that we saw just previously—and with Senator Macdonald and Senator Cash getting all hot under the collar again—you would think that we were talking about something outrageous. This is parliamentary democracy. There are two chambers. We pass legislation; they pass legislation. We get to consider the amendments that they've made or whether or not they've accepted ours. It's the parliamentary system. What this Leader of the Government in the Senate did yesterday was prevent debate on the message because he wants the political timetable, and that's what so objectionable about all of this. The motion moved was not because there was some time sensitivity or the government had to get it up today or there couldn't be further Senate debate because there had been hours of it, because there hadn't. We'd given up Tuesday night. There'd been, I think, 45 minutes of committee time or maybe a little bit more. It wasn't because we'd been filibustering or there'd been lengthy debate. Senator Mathias Cormann did over the Senate because he wants a political timetable, and that is objectionable. That is not the way this place should be run.
This is an important piece of legislation. We should be able to debate and amend what the House sends back. We accept, of course, that the government has the majority in the House; that's why they're on that side. But they do not have the right to prevent this Senate from debating and amending the message or the legislation which comes back from the House, yet that is what this Senate did yesterday. I'd implore Senator Hinch and others on the crossbench who may be against us on the tax cuts—I think you're wrong in policy on that and wrong in merit, but I accept that's your decision—why do over the Senate to enable Senator Cormann to deliver on Malcolm Turnbull's political timetable? There is no reason why this Senate should not have the opportunity to properly debate and amend the message when it comes back. No reason was put yesterday and no reason has been given. The only reason is the political strategy that Senator Cormann is desperate to deliver on for a desperate Prime Minister ahead of the by-elections.
The government will oppose this suspension motion, and that is because the Senate has spoken on this matter. The Senate is in charge of its own destiny. Senator Wong may try to suggest that, somehow, I did over the Senate. No. The government put a proposition to the Senate which a majority of senators supported. A majority of senators want to get on with things. A majority of senators support income tax relief for all working Australians. And a majority of senators understand that Bill Shorten and the Labor Party wants to stand in the way of income tax relief for all working Australians. Let me read from an editorial in one of our daily newspapers:
It's official. The Labor Party has now forgotten—or is simply apathetic towards—the aspirational class of Australians that Labor treasurer Paul Keating created in the 1980s by modernising the Australian economy and creating opportunity for working-class people.
The Labor Party today is selling out working-class people. This is a government that is standing up for working-class people. We want to deliver income tax relief to hardworking families, and we want to ensure that working-class people have the best possible opportunity to get ahead in the future, by making sure that the businesses that employ them have the best possible opportunity to compete with businesses in other parts of the world.
We have a Leader of the Opposition who is quite happy to put businesses in the United States, France, the UK and all around the world at a competitive advantage over businesses here in Australia. He is quite happy to help businesses in other parts of the world take investment and jobs away from Australia, because that is the implication of the sorts of policies the current leader of the Labor Party is pursuing.
What we have in front of the parliament and what has been debated intently for some time now is a proposal to reduce income taxes for all working families around Australia, prioritising low- and middle-income earners but, yes, also addressing bracket creep. The Labor Party used to recognise that bracket creep is bad for families and is bad for the economy. Bracket creep is a drag on economic growth. The Labor Party knows this. The Labor Party is not opposing this because it thinks it's the wrong thing to do. The Labor Party is opposing this because it believes that its politics of envy, its undergraduate, socialist politics of envy agenda, will win it votes. We are pursuing policies to support aspiration. The Labor Party is pursuing the politics of envy because it believes that somehow that is going to help Bill Shorten get into the Lodge.
We continue to steadfastly progress implementation of our plan for a stronger economy and more jobs. We are very grateful to the crossbench for having overwhelmingly supported the government in relation to this. We're very grateful to the Senate, which determined its destiny in relation to this bill yesterday. This is just a traditional attempt at a repechage by the Labor Party. The Labor Party is not happy that the Senate yesterday decided to support the government.
Let me tell you, on the 188 occasions when the Labor Party in government, with Senator Wong as senior minister, guillotined—
We never did this.
She said, 'We never did this.'! Let me tell you, I had to vote on bills, on lots of legislation, on which we didn't have one minute of debate under Labor—188 bills were guillotined through the Senate. Fifty-three bills in one week were guillotined through the Senate—all amendments and all remaining stages in one vote—many bills without even a single word of debate spoken. The President was very generous to the Labor Party yesterday by giving the Labor Party way more leeway than President Hogg ever did. President Hogg never let us speak for even one minute to argue. Once we were in one of your 188 guillotines we were not allowed to say a single word. You took great pleasure in ramming 188 bills through, using the majority vote that you had with the Greens.
Let me just say that this is an important bill. Everybody in the community knows that this is all about Labor trying to stand in the way of income tax relief for hardworking families. Working Australians are grateful to those crossbench senators who have decided to support the government, to back up the government, in making sure that we can get this very important economic reform through the parliament in a timely fashion.
The Senate is the house of review, and its job is to thoroughly scrutinise each and every bill brought before it. The motion moved by the government yesterday did eliminate debate on the Personal Income Tax Plan. It gave barely 30 minutes for debate on amendments to the biggest tax cuts in Australia's history, and it should not have met with majority support. It goes against the principles of accountability and transparency, which are of paramount importance and which were the key fundamental plank of the Nick Xenophon Team, upon which the Centre Alliance senators now sit in this chamber, so I am very disappointed in that action yesterday by them. It is still unclear what their position is. I believe that they should be very clear in terms of their support for stage 3 of the tax plan.
The crossbench in particular should be holding the government to account through ensuring enough time is given to debate amendments. I had proposed several amendments to the income tax bill that I did not have the full opportunity to speak to. My proposal, if I had had time to further discuss it, would have saved nearly $100 billion, compared with the government's plan, while still extending targeted tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, and these savings would help us return to surplus sooner, pay down debt quicker and free up money to spend on critical social and infrastructure programs. That's why I am speaking in favour of this motion. I urge all other crossbenchers to do likewise.
Let's not mince words here. If we, as a Senate, do not pass the suspension of standing orders—and, as a result, we're unable to debate or amend this bill, and we see the passage of all three stages of the government's income tax package—we'll see the Centre Alliance party, Senator Patrick and Senator Griff, strip services from the state of South Australia so that millionaires can get an extra seven grand in their back pockets. That's what the impact of this vote will mean. It means that South Australia's going to lose $140 million in public services for every $100 million that goes to the wealthiest South Australians. It means people in South Australia will languish longer on a public hospital waiting list. It means students in South Australian public schools will be faced with more up-front costs. It means people in South Australia who can't find a job and are forced to live in poverty on Newstart won't see an increase and won't be able to put a roof over their head. It means that the loss of precious biodiversity will continue apace in this country because we'll be stripping money from the environment department that looks after our precious biodiversity. That's what this tax cut package means.
I look to Senator Hanson. If Senator Hanson and One Nation support this entire package, as they are proposing to do, they're saying to people in New South Wales, in Queensland, in Western Australia and in the states that they represent that their children shouldn't get access to Medicare-funded dental care; that regional hospital waiting lists will increase; that people who are sitting in a GP clinic waiting to see a doctor will end up with higher out-of-pocket costs; and that we're going to see infrastructure in our cities and our regions continue to be unfunded. Why? It's so that Senator Hanson and Senator Georgiou can get a massive tax cut—an extra $11,000 in the pocket of Senator Hanson and an extra $11,000 in the pocket of Senator Georgiou. That's what this means.
The definition of One Nation's battlers is now millionaires, politicians, executives and bankers getting an extra $11,000 and more in their back pocket. That's the new definition of a battler according to Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson thinks that, because we've got bankers in front of a royal commission battling to save their industry, they're the new battlers. These are the new battlers in Australia. They're the bankers; they're the politicians and the executives.
I say to Senator Hanson: don't believe the front pages of the papers. Don't believe the fact that you've been bought off by this government. You're being manipulated and, just like the senior executives of News Limited, you all stand to gain from this tax package. What you're going to see as a result of the passage of stages 1, 2, and 3 of this bill are higher medical costs. That's going to eat up the so-called $10 a week that people on low and middle incomes will receive. It means the children in public schools will have crowded classrooms. It means that, if an organisation like Telstra is privatised and loses 8,000 jobs, those people who are going to be put on the scrap heap and be forced onto Newstart aren't going to be able to put food on the table and a roof over their head.
This is now being presented to us as an all-or-nothing vote. Senator Griff and Senator Patrick from Centre Alliance say, 'We don't want to stand in the way of tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes.' The consequence of that is that we're going to give a tax cut to millionaires and bankers, and we're going to strip away public services in South Australia. Well, that will be on Pauline Hanson's and One Nation's head and on the heads of Centre Alliance.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation party are frauds. They are here saying one thing to the ordinary people of regional Queensland and New South Wales, but they're in here doing the bidding of the Liberal Party. They're doing the bidding of bankers, CEOs, executives and politicians. Senator Hanson says, 'We're out there in the community representing ordinary people.' Let me tell you, ordinary people don't earn over $200,000 like you do, Senator Hanson, and won't end up with extra money in their back pocket.
I can't help but observe that, among those opposite, there is a condition that we can diagnose as procedural amnesia. It's important to have an institutional memory in this place. The truth is that sometimes in this chamber, when it comes to procedural manners, you win some and you lose some. That is the nature of democracy. In any forum, you've got to get 50 per cent plus one to carry your proposition, and in this place yesterday we got 50 per cent plus one. So, when those opposite are reflecting on the manner in which this important legislation is being dealt with, they are reflecting on the chamber itself. They are reflecting on the collective majority decision of senators in this place. The will of the Senate is that this personal income tax cut legislation be dealt with in the manner that is occurring. That is the will of this place—nothing more, nothing less.
As we extensively recounted yesterday, those opposite used a guillotine on 188 occasions during the period when they were last in government. To date, during the period that we have been in government, we have used the guillotine on four occasions—188 as opposed to four. There are times when it is appropriate to ask the Senate to facilitate the conclusion of the consideration of legislation. That's something that we have done sparingly and it's something we have done on this occasion. It's also something that will be manifested today when those on the other side of the building send a message to this place after they have considered the legislation before them. This is an appropriate expression of the will of the Senate in a procedural sense.
We on this side of the chamber want to facilitate Australians keeping more of what is theirs. That's the proposition: we want Australians to keep more of what is theirs. Those opposite want government to take more and keep more from the Australian people.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Those opposite have indicated that, if we are successful in passing the legislation, they will seek to repeal elements of our Personal Income Tax Plan. But we all know they don't want to repeal just parts of our Personal Income Tax Plan; they ultimately will want to repeal the lot. The Labor Party, ultimately, will want to repeal the lot because they don't believe that when you cut taxes you're giving back to the Australian people what is theirs. They don't believe that you're allowing the Australian people to keep more of what is theirs, more of what they have earned. Those opposite believe that every dollar in the economy belongs to the government—that's certainly Senator Cameron's view of the world—and that the government, on occasion, will benevolently allow members of the community to have some of the government's money.
Those opposite see a tax cut as an expenditure measure. They see tax cuts as an expenditure measure because they believe government owns every dollar, and a benevolent government, on occasion, might allow the community to keep some of what they earn. That is the proposition of those opposite. That is the belief system of those opposite. That is the world view of those opposite—that everything belongs to the government and, on occasion, it might throw the community a bone. That's not our view. Our view is that members of the community work hard, they earn their money and they should keep their money. They should make a contribution to the community, but they should keep an appropriate portion of what they earn.
This is a motion that Senator Wong has moved to give the Senate the opportunity to reconsider its responsibilities and obligations to the Australian people in regard to $144 billion worth of expenditure. It is true, as Senator Cormann says, that the Senate is in charge of its own destiny. That's exactly the point about this motion that Senator Wong has moved. This is a chance for the Senate to reconsider what has been a fundamental error of judgement yesterday.
In the circumstances we're in now—I think we've had 16 senators move out of this chamber since the last election, so nearly 25 per cent of the Senate has been rolled over since the last election—it's not surprising that you would have a situation where so little understanding would be evident of the responsibilities of senators to the Australian people and to the parliament of this country. I say that deliberately. The parliament of Australia consists of two chambers, not one. In terms of the responsibilities of the government chamber, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, we have traditionally argued that the Senate has the opportunity to debate legislation in this chamber, where we actually have to take responsibility for the detail of legislation and engage in a proper debate about the consequences of government legislation, particularly in a circumstance where we have an unfunded and, as Senator Hanson has said herself, unaffordable $144 billion worth of expenditure over two election cycles.
I heard this morning the proposition from Senator Patrick that suggests, 'The Labor Party can fix up our mistakes later on'—that somehow or other the Labor Party, when it gets elected, will reverse these arrangements. I think Senator Storer made the point yesterday that once these things are actually legislated they are extremely difficult to undo. I make that point first of all. I've seen the Greens in the past make terrible errors of judgement about climate change legislation, for instance. You can't assume that even reasonable, rational people will do the right thing when it comes to actually fixing mistakes in this country. Where would we be if the Greens had actually done the right thing when it came to climate change legislation? So we know the consequences of moving into this chamber and expecting that other people will fix things when errors have been made. We can't assume that. That's the point in this regard.
Senator Paterson also said that people would be denied a tax cut from July. Well, the reality is this: we in the Labor Party support people on low incomes getting immediate tax relief; but this measure is in fact a rebate. There will be an election between now and the opportunity for people to secure a return on their taxation through a rebate in the forthcoming financial year.
The real question is whether or not One Nation is going to return to its historic roots. Senator Hanson came from the Liberal Party and has gone back to the Liberal Party. She is nothing more than the lickspittle of the Liberal Party. She is nothing more than an agent of the Liberal Party. She seeks to represent the battlers of this country by sucking up to the Liberal Party. That's what it amounts to. We have here a clear, unadulterated case where Senator Hanson has now demonstrated that she is the running dog of the Liberal Party when it comes to the issue of defending the interests of the great multinationals, as she says, the great millionaires of this country, of adopting the view of the Point Piper millionaires that has dominated this government, the merchant bankers of this government who now dominate the politics of this country by ensuring that Senator Hanson has become, as I say, the lickspittle of the Liberal Party.
We have a circumstance where the Senate has this opportunity to correct—
An honourable senator: Knuckle draggers!
Well, they are knuckle draggers. They are absolutely knuckle draggers. We have a chance to fix the mistake of yesterday and for the Senate to fulfil its obligations. (Time expired)
I will give the Australian Labor Party one thing. The Labor Party has demonstrated how committed they are to higher taxes on Australian workers today. That's what we see here. How committed are the Australian Labor Party and Mr Bill Shorten to stopping tax relief for Australians? How committed are they?
Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong, on a point of order?
A point of order on direct relevance: the only issue for debate is the procedural one. That's the first point. The second is: you know—so stop misleading—that the point of difference is tax cuts for high-income earners in six years.
Senator Wong, please resume your seat. That is not a point of order.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, resume your seat. There's no point of order.
When Senator Wong and the Labor Party don't get their way, what do we get? We get stunts. We get delaying tactics. We get insults. She directed insults at Senator Patrick. Senator Carr directed insults at Senator Hanson. There are plenty of other insults that come, because, if they don't get their way, there's a great big dummy spit. And, my, what a dummy spit we see from the Labor Party! They cannot accept the fact that the majority of the Australian Senate want to give tax relief to Australian workers. They cannot accept it. And then we get threats. Senator Wong sits there and she says to Senator Cormann across the table, 'We will ensure you will regret this.' That's it: the threats of the Australian Labor Party—threats, insults, stunts, delaying tactics and no principle, because for them it's just all about the game. It's all about the game of delaying the government's agenda.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left! Senators Wong, Cameron and Lines!
They don't give a rat's if Australians pay more tax. Well, we want to ensure hardworking Australians get the tax relief they deserve. That's what we're committed to doing. This Senate has decided, and so it ought to happen.
Before I put the question, I'm going to ask senators to at least count to 10 after they're called to order before they continue their interjections. At least pause momentarily. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion to censure Senator Hanson for misleading the Senate by stating that she will not financially benefit from the government's proposed income tax cuts.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Hanson-Young moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to censure Senator Hanson for misleading the Senate by stating that she will not financially benefit from the government's proposed income tax cuts.
We saw Senator Hanson yesterday come into this place and try and tell this place and the Australian people that she would not be getting a dollar from the tax cut bill that is passing through this place and the other place today. Senator Hanson misled the Australian parliament and she misled the Australian people, because we know that what this tax cut bill does is give her and every other person in this place a massive tax cut—upwards of $11,000 worth of tax cuts. Senator Hanson, who prides herself on being 'the voice of the battler' and 'the people's Pauline', misled the Australian people and she misled this Senate. She said that she would not financially benefit when, of course, she will, and she will benefit more than most other Australians. The majority of Australians get very little out of this tax cut, but Senator Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, gets a whopping $11,815 worth of tax cuts. Yet she came into this place and denied it. She denied that she gets any personal benefit from this.
It's important for everybody to understand that politicians get a huge tax cut out of this bill—all of us do—but for Senator Hanson to pretend that she doesn't is what is fundamentally problematic. At a time when politicians are on the nose, when we know that the Australian people expect better from our politicians, the last thing we should be doing in this place is letting Senator Pauline Hanson off the hook.
Senator Macdonald on a point of order.
Mr President, I refer you to standing order 193, which says, amongst other things:
… all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers—
and that includes the Senate—
shall be considered highly disorderly.
I know at times we allow wide latitude in these things, but this seems to be a motion that is directly contrary to standing order 193. I'd ask that perhaps you counsel Senator Hanson-Young about that.
As I said earlier in the day, Senator Macdonald, I would ask all senators to reflect on their imputations about our colleagues in this chamber and other places, as the standing orders require. I don't believe the motion is out of order, because the motion is observational and seeks leave to move a censure motion. So I believe the motion is in order, but I will ask all senators to keep in mind the language they use and what they allege or impugn about colleagues.
On a point of order, Mr President: I would also make the point that this is a suspension seeking to move a censure motion, but the inherent nature of the motion that is being sought to be debated—the substantive motion—is obviously a motion which is critical of a senator.
It is. The motion is in order, but I ask all senators to be careful with their language.
Thank you, Mr President. The extraordinary thing that has happened here is that Senator Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, came into this place and said, black and white, that she does not get a tax cut from the passage of this bill. That is fundamentally wrong. She then went on to say that anybody suggesting that she gets a tax cut would themselves be misleading the Senate. That is wrong because, of course, like every other politician in this place, the tax cut applies to her. I don't support the tax cut. I voted against it. Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation did not. They have supported it. She has given herself a financial benefit and denied doing so to the Australian people.
Senator Pauline Hanson had numerous hours yesterday after it was pointed out to her that her statement was fundamentally wrong and that she had misled the chamber. She had ample opportunity to come into this place and correct the record. She did not take that opportunity. In fact, the leader of One Nation stood a number of times in this place since making that statement and did not once correct the record. She has misled this chamber and she has misled the Australian people. She should be held to account.
You can't carry on in this place pretending that you're here for the Australian people and you believe that honesty from politicians is important and then come in here and do otherwise. Senator Pauline Hanson says one thing in Queensland—apparently, she's 'the people's Pauline'—then she comes down here and does the total opposite. Not only does she vote to support a massive tax cut for the big end of town, for politicians; she's going to pocket it herself and she's pretending that she's not. She is a fraud. This is a fraudulent leader of a political party. She should be held to account, and we should expect better of leaders of political parties in this place. She had every opportunity to come in and correct the record. Here she comes! She's just walked into the chamber. Will she accept that she made mistakes?
Order! Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. Senator Macdonald.
Mr President, surely calling another senator directly 'a fraud' is unparliamentary. If it's not, I would call Senator Hanson-Young a fraud, but I think it's unparliamentary, so I'd withdraw that.
Thank you for the point of order, Senator Macdonald. Senator Hanson-Young, I would ask you to withdraw that phrase you used where you directly named a fellow senator in those terms.
I withdraw.
Thank you. Continue, Senator Hanson-Young.
Senator Hanson has an opportunity to correct the record and admit that she misled this place in order to be tricky and pretend to the Australian people that she gets no benefit from this. She is not a leader for the people: she is a leader for herself. She puts the 'one' in One Nation, and we all know it.
I'm going to call Senator Cormann. You were raising a point of order, Senator Cameron?
Yesterday, Mr President, you ruled against me getting the call because I stood, you claimed, prior to the clock running down. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has just done exactly the same thing, and you should draw his attention to that position as well.
Senator Cameron, if you review what I said yesterday, I did not not give you the call because you stood earlier. I rejected your claim that you stood first because you stood earlier. Senator Cormann, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has precedence over all senators. Senator Wong is granted precedence over all senators other than the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I reflect that in the calls I give. I'm not going to move to a situation where I give the call to the most agile or quickest person jumping up before the end of a speech. That would be unfair on senators who are not as young and agile. Senator Cormann.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Senator Wong.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
I've got to put the question.
Pursuant to the contingent notice, I move the standing—
I've got a question before the chair.
You won't even allow this to be debated.
Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I have a question before the chair, and I'm required to put that question. The question is the procedural motion, as moved by Senator Cormann, be agreed to.
The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion requiring Senator Hanson to make a personal explanation with regard to why she was misleading the Senate.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Rice from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion that would require Senator Hanson to make a personal explanation with regard to her misleading of the Senate.
Senator Rice, I'm going to ask you to resume your seat. I'm going to rule on this.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, I'm going to rule and then people can take objection if they wish. I had given some thought to this matter in conjunction with advice from officials. The Senate has now twice rejected proposals that it depart from its routine of business by suspending standing orders. That being the case, I shall not entertain any further proposal that the Senate depart from its routine under the standing orders and other orders of the Senate. This is entirely consistent with the precedent of operations of this chamber. Senator Wong.
First, Mr President, I would respectfully suggest that you ought have heard us before you ruled. You entertained no submission—
How would you know what to talk on!
Order! I'm listening to Senator Wong.
You entertained no submission from the chamber as to whether or not the ruling was apposite. Second, I do inquire as to why it is that the magical number is two. That is not my recollection of precedent but, if that's the advice from the Clerk, we respect the Clerk and we respect your rulings given in accordance with that advice. The third point I'd make is this: it is fairly unprecedented for the government to gag a suspension debate. The motion that is moved by the Australian Greens simply requires Senator Hanson to explain why she misled the Senate.
She didn't!
The assertion from the Leader of the Government is she didn't. Then let her explain so, instead of gagging debate to prevent Senator Hanson explaining how she could have misled the Senate. Now, Senator Hanson may have a clear view about why that is the case, that what she said yesterday is somehow correct, but I think, manifestly, it was not, but that is not the issue. The motion that Senator Rice has sought to move is a different motion to the previous one, which was a motion of censure. Given the government gagged that, I'd respectfully suggest it is reasonable for an alternate and lesser motion to be considered by the Senate. If the majority of the Senate does not agree, sobeit. That motion that is flagged is simply that Senator Hanson be required to explain.
Senator Cormann, on the point of order?
On the point of order: clearly the longstanding practice, including when those of us now on this side of the chamber were on the other side of the chamber when the previous government moved a guillotine on 188 occasions and 53 times in one week—and we sought to move repetitive suspension motions. When we sought to move repetitive suspension motions in opposition, I remember President Hogg ruling precisely the way you have ruled today. I would encourage you to reconfirm the precedent that has been set by previous presidents based on the advice of the clerks at the time, the same as you have received advice from the Clerk today.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
I'm going to rule on this point of order, Senator Collins. I've heard from Senator Wong and Senator Cormann—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
I called Senator Wong as the leader of the opposition. I am showing a great deal of leniency here.
I have a point of clarification.
Senator Di Natale interjecting—
Sorry, I didn't see you down there, Senator Di Natale.
I just want to say a couple of words.
It was a motion by the Greens. I'll let you ask a question but I'm not going to take lengthy submissions. I have provided a ruling and I'm granting latitude to those making submissions on it. Senator Di Natale—on the point of order, please, not on the substance.
I'll be very brief. We have had what is, in my time here, unprecedented: a gag on a suspension debate. You wouldn't have needed to rule had we been able to debate the suspension but the suspension was gagged.
Is this on the point of order? That appears to be on the substance, Senator Di Natale, not on the point of my ruling.
We have put forward a motion that is unrelated to the previous motion. It's not a censure motion; it's simply requesting Senator Hanson provide an explanation as to why she misled the Senate. We're talking about $140 billion—
Senator Di Natale!
and we have Senator Hanson misleading the Senate—
Senator Di Natale, please resume your seat. You are now turning to the substance. Senator Collins, this is the last submission I'm going to take.
You're putting the President in an impossible position to gag debate!
Senator Wong!
Sorry, I was talking to—
That observation referred to me; that's all.
I said you were put in an impossible position to—
I don't agree. Senator Collins.
Thank you, Mr President. I do have a point of clarification. I listened carefully to your earlier statement, and you invited submissions with respect to it. I understand that you've had one from the government and one from the opposition and now one from the Australian Greens. But the point is that we were not on notice that this was what you would be doing now. We had no opportunity to look at how you were describing the position that you were taking and the order that you were making. So the point of clarification I'm asking is: does that mean you will not now entertain any motions about changing the order of business from the government?
I take Senator Wong's point—the request for me to take submissions before I rule. I was trying to provide the ruling so that people could actually deal with the detail as I provided it. As to the query with respect to the number being two, I have specifically considered and asked for advice around this. The events of today were rather predictable, and I have specifically taken advice that this is entirely consistent with past practice in terms of rejecting further motions to suspend standing orders, given it is not my ruling that the Senate proceeds in this way. It is in fact a decision of the Senate chamber—a majority of this chamber—that the debate is to be dealt with in this fashion. It does not come from the chair, as was alluded to last night.
With respect to your query, Senator Collins, I will seek further advice on that, given that ministers and the government do have a different status and an opportunity to rearrange the business. I will seek advice on that before I provide a ruling. So my ruling on that, unless someone wishes to take issue with it, stands and we move to proceed with the order of business as outlined today.
I rise today to speak on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. One might ask why a Victorian senator might be speaking on the Water Amendment Bill 2018. Victoria, along with New South Wales, has the longest frontage to the Murray River, which is vital for the Victorian irrigation industry. It is the lifeblood of many of the Victorian communities, particularly in the north of the state. We in Victoria obviously have a strong interest in the responsible management of the Murray-Darling Basin. We need to ensure that the needs of irrigators are balanced against the responsibility for the future of the environment and we must preserve it for future generations. Indeed, it was only yesterday that some of the north-western Victorian councils visited me. They are visiting the nation's capital and visiting various ministers and other parliamentarians.
The Victorian government has taken extraordinary steps in recent times regarding water. It has built pipelines, it has improved pipelines to diminish loss of water by evaporation, and it has built, as a PPP project, the desalination plant in the south of Victoria. What the north-west councils of Victoria were speaking to me about was the importance of water supply for that region, particularly for agriculture and livestock management but also to boost local and regional economies. There is quite a large fruit nectar industry, for example, in that part of the state. They also spoke about what has flowed—no pun intended—from a lack of certainty about water supply. They've had young people move away from that area of the state because it's not necessarily tenable any longer to farm in that part of the state, which is drought affected.
The Victorian government recently announced $32 million for the East Grampians rural pipeline, which is coming from Lake Fyans, but that is also reliant on federal government expenditure. Hopefully, this government will be able to support this project. What they're seeking with the East Grampians rural pipeline is to deliver a secure non-potable supply to users, which addresses the extreme vulnerability to climate variability. Further, they needed to give confidence to businesses wishing to expand their operations and encourage emerging investment opportunities that in turn will benefit the regional economy directly and indirectly.
I want to turn to the substance of the bill. There have been 100 years of conflict about the Murray-Darling Basin. In fact, it was part of the 1890s Constitutional—
Conventions.
Conventions. Thank you, Senator Birmingham, that's very helpful. It did form a part of those discussions. It was actually a Labor government that delivered significant achievement in arriving at a plan, and this water bill seeks to deliver on the time lines of that plan. It was negotiated as part of a historic COAG agreement with Mr Burke in the other place, as he was the then water minister. It was finally signed off with the states in 2012 and it was indeed a historic achievement.
Of course, no-one is saying the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is perfect, but it is historic and it is the only agreement in 100 years that's had the chance of ensuring the health of the basin. When the Labor Party were in government, we fought to achieve the plan and in opposition we are continuing a fight to ensure that it's delivered on time. We want the plan implemented in full, because it is the first time in our nation's history that all of the basin states and the Commonwealth have agreed to work together to secure the health of the river. We are committed to protecting the River Murray, and we will always fight to ensure the plan is implemented in full and on time.
What we have seen though in recent months is a lot of grandstanding, particularly from the Greens political party, about the Murray-Darling plan. Of course, this is also the party that advocates for climate change, yet was not able to vote for it when there was a significant chance of achieving and effecting proper legislation to deal with climate change.
We are committed to the plan that we put in place. In opposition we are going to do everything we can, as we are now doing, to force this government to deliver on the plan, notwithstanding some of the views of those inside the National Party, particularly—sadly and regrettably—the former minister. The plan is to return the 450 gigalitres to the river, and it comes with a funding package of $1.77 billion that Labor actually delivered in 2012. The funding is for on-farm water projects to provide the Commonwealth with water and is to remove constraints in the basin to allow the water to get where it is required. But Mr Barnaby Joyce as water minister put the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment in doubt. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was sabotaged by Mr Joyce as water minister and he turned a blind eye to what really can be properly described as water theft.
Senator Wong has indicated there have been extraordinarily serious allegations of water theft and corruption in the northern basin. Perhaps some in this chamber saw the Four Corners program recently which went into those allegations. It stated in that program that more than 100 years of greed, mismanagement and plundering of one of Australia's most valuable resources was supposed to end five years ago with the introduction of the federal government's Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money was committed in a hard-won deal to save the inland river system from the ravages of heavy agricultural use, particularly the thirsty work of irrigating the vast cotton plantations of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland.
On that Four Corners program they raised serious allegations about the way the plan is working and there were accusations of illegal water use—the pumping of water from fragile rivers and the tampering of meters. There were also discussions that were aired on the program between bureaucrats and powerful irrigators, and of course these were quite shocking revelations because the plan was supposed to be managing those interests.
I suggest that, if people haven't watched that Four Corners program, they should do that, but they should also watch two films which are quite poetic and moving and concern mismanagement and greed around water resources. They are French films called Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources. They are set in Provence shortly after the First World War, and they concern the human tragedy of people trying to steal land and control water sources. I would suggest those films for those cold winter nights during the recess. They're very good films.
I want to look also at what the Labor Party have sought assurances on. We want some metering funding so we know what water is used. We want 'no meter, no pump' rules, embargoes on environmental water, and daily extraction limits so the environmental water is protected. We support a South Australian royal commission on water, although it only relates to South Australian matters and, as I said at the beginning of this contribution, Victoria is obviously affected as it has a large frontage on the Murray. So we would support that royal commission. We would like the government to fix the mess that's been created by the Prime Minister and the former minister Mr Joyce, and we would like that done as quickly as possible with a lack of grandstanding—just to get on with it.
I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.
I move:
That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.
I seek leave to speak for approximately 15 minutes.
The government will give leave to the leader of the opposition for five minutes on condition that no further steps are taken by the opposition to prevent a final determination of this very important matter by 11:40.
I ask that Senator Patrick explain why that condition has just been imposed when yesterday I was told by him and by Senator Cormann that leave would be granted to party leaders to enable them to speak. I've just been told I can only speak—
Chair, is this a point of order or is it just Senator Wong thinking she has the right to get up and have a chat whenever she wants to?
The CHAIR: Senator Wong has sought leave. So the question is: is leave granted?
I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes, and without condition. It is unreasonable to require that a party that opposes tax cuts for high-income earners be allowed to speak only if we agree to support them, to support the bill. That is utterly unreasonable. I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes, and if leave is not granted I will move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from speaking for 15 minutes in accordance with the deal that Centre Alliance did with the government.
The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Wong. The government has put its position on—
On the point of order: we are not forcing the Labor Party to support the bill. That is wrong. What we are seeking to achieve is for a majority of the Senate to be able to express its will and not to be frustrated any longer by a Labor Party and others who want to prevent the will of the Senate from being given expression. The government has granted leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for five minutes on condition that this can come to a final vote by 11:40, and we will grant leave to any other party leader or Independent on the same terms.
Well, I refuse to accept the condition. No leave is granted. The government is refusing leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to speak on this bill because I refuse to agree to the condition that I pass the legislation. It is unbelievable.
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Are you going to sit me down?
The CHAIR: Senator Wong, you need to resume your seat. The government has offered leave and you are not accepting it on that offer.
I will speak, but I am not agreeing to a condition—
So five minutes—
Well, I will take the five minutes because I understand that the ruling is that I can't move to suspend to take 15 minutes.
The CHAIR: Just a moment, Senator Wong—
Can you please check—
The CHAIR: I now understand that the government is granting leave for Senator Wong to speak for five minutes. That's the proposition?
Yes, on the condition that there are no further steps—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
The CHAIR: Order! Senator Macdonald, I'm answering a point of order. Senator Wong, the Senate has already determined how this matter will be progressed, so there's no opportunity to suspend standing orders.
Well, the first point is that we were misled by Senator Patrick yesterday, because we were told that leave would be given to party leaders to speak. I've now been given five minutes—after a fight—on a bill for $144 billion. Can I just say this: today we are seeing the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Centre Alliance and others voting for an income tax cut that will benefit those earning over $200,000 a year. Do you know what? Senator Patrick, you're voting to give yourself a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Hinch, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Anning, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Burston, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Bernardi, a $7,000 tax cut; and Senator Leyonhjelm, a $7,000 tax cut. And Senators Hanson and Georgiou, you're voting to give yourselves a $7,000 tax cut.
Government senators interjecting—
The CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. I ask members of the chamber to be respectful.
Madam Chair, there has been an identifiable deterioration in the language being directed at the crossbench yesterday and today with respect to this debate.
The CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan, that's not a point of order. Please resume your seat.
I will rise to my feet every time it's done and make a point of order. I was trying to make a point that you might be able to advise the chamber in relation to their language.
The CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan, I have asked you to resume your seat. I have ruled there is no point of order. Thank you. Resume your seat.
So all of those senators over there have voted to give themselves a $7,000 tax cut. What we wanted to do—and we had the support of the majority of the Senate yesterday morning—was to proceed with the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners but to not proceed with the tax cuts for higher income earners which are to come into place in 2024. All of the debate that we have seen and all of the procedural straitjackets that Senator Cormann has been engaging in have been because he doesn't want to debate what is unsustainable, and that is an argument that low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts should be held hostage to tax cuts for high-income earners in 2024.
Let's be clear on what Senator Hanson and others have done today. What she ought to know is that the tax cuts that she is now voting for by agreeing with this motion, agreeing with what's before the chamber, will ensure that the people of Wentworth do very well and the people of Longman do very badly. What you need to know is that in Longman the number of people who are earning over $200,000 is 703. Guess how many in Wentworth: over 10,000. Well done, Senator Hanson: you've delivered to Point Piper! Well done, Senator Hanson: you've delivered to Malcolm Turnbull's electorate! But bad luck for the burghers of Longman, because you have ensured that tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefit high-income earners, people earning over $200,000 a year—
And Penny Wong.
I'll take the interjection. He says, 'And Penny Wong'. I'm voting against it, mate. Why don't you? That's a great interjection! What an outstanding interjection from Senator Macdonald!
I make this point: what we have seen over these last 24 hours is a government desperate on a political strategy, a government desperate to try and hold low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts, which they deserve, hostage to high-income tax cuts. Senator Patrick, more fool you that you've copped it. You have come in here on the morning and said, 'Yes, I want stage 3 out,' and then voted for every single stage of a procedural straitjacket to ensure that amendment could not be insisted on and furthermore, could not even be debated. What sort of senator does that? At least have the courage of your convictions. Stand up and debate it. What you've done is ensure they don't even have to debate an amendment that you supported 24 hours ago. What sort of senator does that, Senator Patrick?
What is extraordinary about this is that all that we would have needed to ensure that the tax cut for low-income earners proceeded and the tax cuts in stage 3 that overwhelmingly benefited those above $200,000 were removed would have been the same tied vote that we had yesterday. If Senator Patrick and Senator Griff had simply had the courage of their convictions, if Senator Hanson had decided to deliver to Longman rather than Wentworth, that's all we would have needed to ensure that Mr Turnbull's political strategy of holding tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians hostage to high-income earners could not have been delivered. But instead, in this Senate, the Centre Alliance and Senator Hanson have fallen over themselves to deliver to high-income Australia and to Malcolm Turnbull's political strategy. That is all they have done. I urge the Senate not to support the motion from Senator Cormann, who is now rising to his feet. (Time expired)
Chair, I'm enjoying the speech by the Leader of the Opposition so much that, if she seeks leave to speak for 10 more minutes, the government will grant it.
(Extension of time granted)
You know what, we are all supposed to be grateful that they are doling out five minute here and ten minutes there! We are supposed to say, 'Thank you, Mathias, for allowing senators elected to this place, who sit at this table, to actually debate.' Tell me, did Senator Patrick have a crisis of confidence? Well, I'm happy to speak for ten minutes.
Government senators interjecting—
The CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong, resume your seat, please. Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence.
I'm very happy to talk about stage 3 in a little more detail. I hope that Senator Storer—who yesterday made a very substantive contribution, although it was cut off—has the opportunity to as well. First, let's remind ourselves that the hyperbole from the other side that Labor is standing in the way of low- and middle-income tax cuts is a Liberal lie. It is simply untrue. We have made clear from budget night that we support all of the tax cuts commencing next month. Let's stop pretending that hyperbole is truthful, let's stop pretending that that has any element of truth to it and let's recall that that is entirely a Liberal lie in order to give the coalition political cover for the fact that they want to hold those tax cuts hostage to the 2024 tax cuts. That is the first point.
The second point is this: there are two primary reasons we oppose stage 3. First, it is fiscally reckless. As I outlined in my second reading speech yesterday, it is clear from evidence to the Senate inquiry that this element of the tax package down the track—I think it is by 2026-27—will be growing at 12 per cent per year. What this Senate is doing by locking in that tax cut is proposing a reduction in revenue over time that grows at 12 per cent a year. That is an enormously expensive proposition for the federal budget. Unlike those opposite, we don't think all tax is theft. We actually think it's a good thing for the federal budget to be able to fund things like the age pension, aged care, health, education and social security, as well as defence and infrastructure. Why would you have a tax measure that grows so unsustainably be locked in and unfunded six years out, which will ensure it will be more difficult for any government down the track to support proper funding of health, education and essential social services?
I made the point in the second reading speech that it is that growth in the cost of the tax package that is in dispute. It's the only part of the tax package that is in dispute in this chamber. We oppose stage 2; but, in terms of the numbers in this chamber, stage 3 is the only part that is actually in dispute. I made the point that if there were an expenditure program growing at 12 per cent, you would hear the baying from the other side for it to be cut. This is three or four times more than the annual growth rate of spending on defence. This is, from recollection, six times more than the annual growth rate in family benefits. This is four times more, or thereabouts, than the growth in education funding. I laid these parameters out in my second reading speech.
This Senate is now rolling over—or proposing to, if Senator Patrick completes his backflip—to put in place, six years ahead, a tax plan that will grow in cost at 12 per cent a year. It was John Daley from the Grattan Institute who pointed out the fiscal recklessness of the plan. He pointed out that the likelihood of there being some external economic shock to which the government has to respond, as we had to respond during the GFC, is substantial. At six years out, why would you lock in a structural change to your tax system which would so deprive the Commonwealth government of revenue which is essential?
From a government that claims it is fiscally responsible, it is fiscally reckless.
The second point I'd make is the one I've made previously, which is that this is not a progressive taxation measure. Remember what stage 3 cuts do: they fundamentally flatten the tax scale between $40,000 and $200,000. And remember what that means: it means that we are essentially saying that people on $40-something thousand and people on $200,000 ought to be treated equally in the tax system. Progressive taxation for the Labor Party is something we actually believe in. We believe in it because it's fair; but we also believe in it because we do believe that government should have the capacity to provide decent health, decent education, decent social services and decent aged care for our community, as well as funding our national security imperatives—which remain imperative. Why would you have a tax cut that grows so much faster than defence spending? Why would you do that? Why would you do that six years out?
Miranda Stewart of the ANU said that this particular measure is both inefficient and a retrograde step that undermines 100 years of progressive income tax rate structure in this country. But that is what those opposite are voting for. What they want to do is to make sure that that tax cut holds hostage the tax cuts which start next month. That is only a political strategy; there is no logic to that. There's actually no logic, in fact, for Senator Cormann getting so stressed and having to guillotine and gag today and yesterday. The government, in fact, has two weeks—there's a second week. The only reason there's been a guillotine and a gag this week is because they want to get it done before the weekend. That is the only reason.
Let's also go to the unfairness of the package. Senator Hanson and Senators Patrick and Griff ought to be aware of the distributional impact of these tax cuts. The reality is that when all three stages of this tax package are implemented the benefits go overwhelmingly to high-income earners. I think 62 per cent of the benefits go to 20 per cent of taxpayers. Do people understand that? They keep talking about low-and middle-income Australians—62 per cent of the benefits go to 20 per cent of taxpayers. If you look at stage 3 alone, it is even more. As a whole, for the whole government tax package, two-thirds of the benefits go to the highest income earners in Australia. So every time Senator Cormann, Senator Birmingham and others get up and say we are for low- and middle-income Australia, remember that figure: two-thirds of the benefits go to the highest income earners in Australia.
Finally, I want to come back to the point about Longman. Senator Hanson comes in here and styles herself—she's on the front-page of one of Australia's papers today—as supporting the battlers. Well, she's certainly given herself a tax cut by supporting the government on this. I'll come back to those earning over $200,000, who are the primary beneficiaries of the aspect of this package in dispute. The national average per electorate of the number of people earning over that amount is 2,054. The number in Longman is 703. The number in Wentworth is 10,367. So, when the press gallery and others talk to Senator Hanson and she tells you that she's the champion of the battlers, I hope that they ask her why she voted for a tax cut which so overwhelmingly benefits high-income earners and so overwhelmingly benefits those people living in Mr Turnbull's electorate. And why is it that she voted for a tax package that so does not benefit those who live in Longman, in a relative sense.
This is a fiscally reckless package. It's a package which requires this Senate to sign off on tax cuts in six years time, two elections away, but Malcolm Turnbull wants it now. And the government is seeking to use those tax cuts to hold hostage the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australia. That is the wrong thing to do and, if Senator Patrick does not hold to the position he held yesterday, he ought to explain why in 24 hours he's done this, why in 24 hours he's sold people out. He hasn't even put pressure on the government to blink. Senator Cormann said, 'Mate, we're not going to blink,' and he said: 'Okay, I'll just back down easy. I'll give you all these tax cuts that won't help the people in Mayo and that will ensure it will be much harder for future governments to fund aged care— (Time expired)
I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes.
The CHAIR: Is leave granted?
Leave is granted for five minutes.
The CHAIR: Leave is granted for five minutes.
Hang on. You granted leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for 15 minutes. Be consistent here. You said you would grant leave to party leaders for 15 minutes. Be consistent. You said you would grant leave to party leaders for 15 minutes—
The CHAIR: Senator Di Natale, please resume your seat. Leave of five minutes has been granted. It's up to you whether you want to speak or not.
What a disgraceful, shameful act. What a dark day for the Senate here in Australia. Regardless of what you think of this piece of legislation, we should be at least entitled to have an opportunity, firstly, to interrogate it and to debate it—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Chair, I rise on a point of order. I ignored Senator Macdonald's persistent interjections on me. I ignored them. He interjected on me for almost the entirety of my speech.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Now he is interjecting again.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
And again.
The CHAIR: Senator Wong—
My point of order is that I will be asking you to use the standing orders to deal with Senator Macdonald if he does not desist from persistent interjections.
The CHAIR: I have reminded senators on a number of occasions to respect the speakers. It's not normally my habit to call out particular senators, but if there are constant interjections I shall do that. Senator Di Natale has the right, as all senators do, to be heard in silence.
Yesterday we were denied the opportunity through the committee stage to ask substantive questions on this piece of legislation. Today we have seen the debate be gagged. This is the first time since I have been in this place I have seen a gag on a suspension. It's just disgraceful. Now we've been given the opportunity to speak for five minutes. This is $140 billion being ripped out of essential public services and the government want to ram it through the Senate. The bottom line here is that this is a package that does nothing for low-income earners. The bottom 40 per cent of income earners will get no benefit from this bill. The bottom 40 per cent will get no benefit from stage 1, 2 or 3 of this bill. This is a package that will flow to the top 60 per cent. If you look at stage 3, 95 per cent of the benefit will go to the top 20 per cent of workers.
This is the new definition of what a 'battler' is in Australia, according to One Nation. You are a battler in Australia if you are in the top 20 per cent of income earners apparently. If you are a banker, a CEO or someone on $500,000 or a million bucks, you get a tax cut. Senator Wong is right that $7,000 goes into the back pocket of these people as a result of stage 3, but the combined impact of the entire package is worth over $11,000. Every politician in this place will get an $11,000 tax cut. Bankers will get an $11,000 tax cut. CEOs and executives in industries, in big multinationals, will get an $11,000 tax cut. If you are a nurse, childcare worker or teacher, you will get a few hundred bucks in your back pocket.
The bottom line is that we face a choice here in Australia right now. This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to ever pass through the Australian parliament. This is worth $140 billion. It fundamentally rewrites the fabric of Australian society. We cannot continue to afford to invest in all of the foundations of a decent society—decent health care, education and infrastructure, increasing Newstart and protecting our environment—if we strip $140 billion of revenue in a prescription to turbocharge inequality here in Australia.
This is what the government's already done. It's taken half a billion dollars from ARENA, over $300 million from the ABC and nearly $60 million in legal aid funding. Freezing Medicare cost nearly $3 billion. It's cut family tax benefit supplements, 4,000 jobs from the ATO, jobs from ASIC and jobs from the CSIRO. It has made huge cuts to the environment department at a time when we are losing biodiversity at a rate far greater than at any other time on earth. R&D tax offsets: $600 million gone. Local government grants: $900 million gone. There have been cuts to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. This government has presided over a litany of cuts.
Can you imagine what will happen if we strip another $140 billion of revenue from those essential services? Can you imagine what we are going to be faced with in the coming years when it comes to the cuts that we've already seen from this government?
And of course you've got Senator Hanson over there. Let me quote to you what Senator Hanson said. She said, 'I am not getting a tax cut.' She said:
The tax cuts are going to be up to $200,000. I'm a very fortunate Australian to be earning more than $200,000. I am paying … 45c in the dollar on that. I'm not getting tax relief.
Well, Senator Hanson should come into this chamber and apologise for misleading the Senate. Senator Hanson gets over $11,000 as a result of her support for this legislation.
And over there we have Centre Alliance, who are selling out South Australians. For every dollar that goes into the back pocket of wealthy South Australians, $1.40 gets taken out in vital public services in South Australia.
This is one of the most shameful, disgraceful days that I've seen in my time in this Senate, with $140 billion ripped out of public revenue—taken out of our public hospitals; many people will need to languish for longer on waiting lists. There will be more up-front costs in public schools. Infrastructure that desperately needs investment isn't going to get it—and all because you want to ram this bill through without any scrutiny. (Time expired)
The CHAIR: A point of order, Senator Macdonald?
My point of order is in relation to the decision to stop leaders having a capacity to speak for more than five minutes. Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain why it's only five minutes on such an important issue.
The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Macdonald; that is not a point of order. Senator Macdonald?
You've grossly insulted me by calling Senator Cameron Senator Macdonald.
The CHAIR: I beg your pardon. My apologies. Senator Collins?
This is actually an important point of order, rather than the time wasting that's happening on the government side. The Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated earlier across the chamber that the nature of his arrangement was not certain things. I would like him to clarify for all of us what the actual arrangement is. Rather than us having to debate each time one party leader gets up to try and speak, let the leader of the government tell us what the deal is.
The CHAIR: Senator Collins, please resume your seat. That's not a point of order. Senator Storer.
Madam—
Sorry, Madam Chair—
The CHAIR: I beg your pardon, Senator Storer; please resume your seat. Senator Collins?
How can it not be a point of order to clarify what procedure is before us at the moment? That makes no sense at all.
The CHAIR: Senator Wong?
Obviously, this is—
An honourable senator interjecting—
I'm making a suggestion to the chamber.
An honourable senator interjecting—
No, well—
The CHAIR: I remind the chamber that we are in Committee of the Whole.
We are in committee.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong?
There is obviously some confusion because the procedure the chamber is now undertaking or utilising is a procedure that is entirely contained within Senator Cormann's head, as discussed with Senator Patrick, and, even as we have been conducting debate, the procedure has changed.
Initially we had an argument where I was denied my request for leave for 15 minutes unless I gave an agreement that this be concluded by a certain time. I refused to give that agreement. I was then given five minutes, and then, after the five minutes concluded, I was given an additional 10 minutes.
I do think it is incumbent on the government, given that they have agreed that party leaders speak, to explain what the procedure actually is. In particular, why is it that the Leader of the Australian Greens, who is a party leader—a party that I oppose regularly, but—
The CHAIR: Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Thank you. The Senate has determined how this matter will proceed, and there is to be no debate on the points. However, senators are entitled to the right to seek leave, and I think that's where we are up to with Senator Storer.
I'd like to seek leave to speak on this motion.
The CHAIR: Leave is granted for five minutes.
The Senate is the house of review. Our job is to thoroughly scrutinise each and every bill brought before us. These motions moved by the government to limit debate on the Personal Income Tax Plan, the biggest tax cuts in Australia's history, should not meet with majority support, and it goes against the principles of accountability and transparency, which are of paramount importance. This was clearly the platform on which the Nick Xenophon Team ran at the last federal election. It was the central part of their philosophy, and I believe that Centre Alliance today should be abiding by that by allowing the Senate yesterday and today to adequately discuss and debate these measures.
They are very significant measures which have significant implications for future debt, deficit considerations and services. They should not be taken lightly. That's why I put forward a revision to the whole plan to pass stage 1 of the plan, which I saw as reasonable and appropriate, providing tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, and then to look at further changes to tax relief when appropriate given that the Secretary to the Treasury himself noted that there are significant error bands in forward estimates beyond three or four more years further. So I did support yesterday the Senate setting aside stage 3 of the personal tax plan, and that would have left $40 billion or so set aside in the future. Should the economy and international economic circumstances make that round of tax cuts affordable, we could do so then. But that is in 2024, which is two elections—six years—away.
Then stage 2 would cost $80 billion, twice as much as stage 3, and it would still be two elections before it would be brought about. Some crossbenchers are suggesting that, with economic circumstances, these changes would be easily wound back, but that's not the lesson that we've learnt from the 2007 tax cuts, which proved unaffordable in the wake of the global financial crisis but were locked in. It's made the task of returning the budget to balance impossible at least for the last decade. The alternative that may come will be to slash services like health and education. That was tried and it proved unpalatable to the public and ultimately to the Liberal government.
The government presently is struggling to find the money to pay for the level of services that the public has come to expect. It plays down the risks of enacting the entire package in one hit, even though Treasury itself acknowledges the error bands, as I've mentioned before. The recent 24 hours has seen geopolitical trade tremors that may well pass, but they are a salutary reminder of just how quickly times can change. The Reserve Bank is clearly worried about the prospects of investment. Financial markets are concerned that a return to protectionism would mean less trade. Either development would have a marked effect on the Australian economy and on revenue, making reducing debt and returning the budget to balance even more difficult. Cuts to education and health would be inevitable, with fewer teachers and nurses in South Australia and uncertainty about the infrastructure plans, in terms of roads and bridges, upon which the budget just passed. The Greens have put forward that for every dollar of tax cuts received by South Australia the state would lose $1.40 for spending on essential services, and that hardly sounds like a good deal. So, as I have argued before, such an uncertain economic environment demands that the Senate rethink yesterday's and today's decisions regarding the pushing forward on the whole bill. This is what the Centre Alliance said they wanted yesterday in terms of removing stage 3, so I do not believe we should vote for this bill. At present, it should be considered in an orderly fashion.
Chair, I am seeking a point of clarification. I'm just wondering if Senator Hanson is going to make any statement to the Senate in relation—
The CHAIR: Well—
If you'd just let me finish—
The CHAIR: Senator Cameron, that's a matter for Senator Hanson.
I'm just asking the question.
The CHAIR: No, I'm asking you to resume your seat. Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron, I'm asking you to resume your seat.
Madam Chair, I have a point of clarification as well. I understand that there are other parties yet to speak, quite aside from the issue that Senator Cameron raised, but I also understand that in the program at 11:45 there's what is ordinarily a hard marker, so I seek clarification from you as to what will occur procedurally if senators are still responding to this somewhat vague opportunity that's been agreed to by other senators behind doors. What procedurally happens in this place as opposed to Mathias Cormann sitting here saying, 'Five, five'? Is this how we run the Senate now? This is outrageous.
The CHAIR: Senator Collins, please resume your seat. There is a hard marker at 11.45 where the business of the Senate will continue from where we left off.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The CHAIR: The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
The CHAIR: I'm sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson. The minister has moved. The question needs to be put without debate, so please resume your seat. There are two motions here and both must be voted on. It's my intention to take the vote on one and then move to the second one. If there is a call for a division, we'll ring the bells for one minute. Senator Bernardi?
There are some really unseemly interjections being levelled towards Senator Hanson from the Greens.
The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Please resume your seat. The question is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.
The question now is that the committee does not insist on its amendments.
I move:
That the resolution be reported.
A point of clarification: does the motion that the Senate passed yesterday mean that this motion is not debatable and that no suspension of standing orders can be moved in order to debate it?
The CHAIR: That's correct.
Yet again the government's refusing to debate its tax laws.
The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Wong.
I ask a further question, which is whether the government will now grant leave for party leaders, given what has just occurred—that the Senate is not insisting—to be given five minutes.
The CHAIR: I'm going to put the question. The question is that—
I've asked a question.
The CHAIR: There's a motion before us and it needs to be put.
Well I'll move an amendment.
The CHAIR: There's to be no amendment or debate.
I've asked the government if they will—
The CHAIR: It's a matter for the government, Senator Wong.
Is the minister going to respond?
The CHAIR: He hasn't stood, so I'm going to put the question. Senator—
We are past the hard marker and we ought to be moving on to other business.
The CHAIR: Senator Marshall, we're already in the process of dealing with these motions, so they now need to be concluded regardless of us having passed that hard marker.
The CHAIR: The question, as moved by the minister, is that the resolution be reported.
I move:
That the report from the committee be adopted.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.
Senator Whish-Wilson, I am advised that you are seeking to withdraw a matter.
Not that I'm aware of. I will double-check, though.
I present report No. 6 of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 6 OF 2018
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 7.54 PM.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix I for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018
Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2018
5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:
(see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)
6. Agenda item 3 (Committee membership) deferred until the next committee meeting.
7. The committee agreed to the members of the NSW Legislative Council's Selection of Bills Committee attending the next meeting of the committee to observe proceedings.
(David Bushby) Chair
21 June 2018
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendments (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date: 20 August 2018
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Impact on those in the proposed trial site
Possible submissions or evidence from: ACOSS, National Social Security Rights Network, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Maintaining income Thresholds) Bill 2018
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Impact of Family Tax Benefit recipients
Possible submissions or evidence from: ACOSS, National Social Security Rights Network, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 14 August
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Space Activities (Launches and Returns) Amendment Bill 2018 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Space Industry Association of Australia
Australian space companies
International and domestic law experts and academics
Australian Space Agency (in the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science)
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
On the papers
Possible reporting date:
13 August 2018
I move:
That the report be adopted.
by leave—One of the bills in this report is the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018, which the Australian Greens asked to have referred and which has regrettably not been referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry. This bill is part of the slow march down the very dangerous path to authoritarianism and fascism around the world that we are seeing at the moment. That slow march contains an erosion of some of the fundamental freedoms and liberties that we used to hold so dear in Western democracies and in Australia. We used to actually sacrifice lives to defend those fundamental freedoms and liberties.
You only have to look at what is happening around the world now. Look at what is happening in Italy, where they have just announced that they're going to do a census to discover which of the Italian people are Roma people as a precursor to rounding the Roma people up and deporting them from Italy. You only have to look at what is now happening in Trump's America, where children are being ripped from their parents' arms near the border with Mexico, kept in cages and injected with dangerous drugs to treat the very serious psychiatric conditions that that separation from their parents is causing. If you want to look at where this most recent manifestation of fascism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism started, look no further than this parliament and look no further than this country. The words, 'You are worse than I am,' should be ringing in the ears of every Australian right now. That phrase, 'You are worse than I am,' is what US President Donald Trump said—
Senator Collins, on a point of order?
I apologise, Senator McKim. I'm not seeking to interrupt your remarks. For a point of clarity, we want to understand which bill you're referring to. Where is it in the report?
Down the bottom.
Down there—that it not be referred?
Senator McKim interjecting—
Okay. Thank you.
The words, 'You are worse than I am,' should be ringing in the ears of every Australian right now. Those words, of course, were the words that US President Donald Trump said to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in their now infamous phone call where Mr Turnbull was trying to explain to US President Trump why Australia was forcibly separating families and why Australia was forcibly ripping children away from the arms of their parents in the name of immigration detention, border security and counterterrorism. Make no mistake, this is a fascist and totalitarian infection that we're seeing around the world. We're seeing it in the United States and we're seeing it in Italy, where they want to do a census that is a precursor to rounding up the Roma people and deporting them from that country. We're seeing it in populist, right-wing, extremist, neo-Nazi and fascist politics around the world, where they are copying their speaking points from the Australian government's propaganda on its Operation Sovereign Borders system.
All those things, these most recent manifestations of fascism, sprang from the day when this parliament decided it was okay to lock up children in detention in the name of border security. They sprang from the day when this parliament decided it was okay to forcibly separate innocent children from their parents in the name of border security. Make no mistake, as this spreads around the world, this is a very, very dangerous development for democracy, for human rights, for civil liberties and for the things we used to care about so dearly and the things we used to sacrifice Australian lives to defend. With the spread of these things, it is a dangerous time for the world. We need to understand, to look back to the day this parliament decided it was okay to exile innocent people to Manus Island and Nauru, when this parliament decided it was okay to subject them to the torture of indefinite detention, when this parliament decided it was okay to rip apart families in the name of base politics and immigration and border security.
These developments around the world are dangerous. They are troubling. They will lead to mass human misery, mass deprivation of liberty, mass deprivation of freedom. They will lead to death. They will lead to the ongoing separation of families. They will lead to what we're seeing in America, where children are ripped from the arms of their families and locked up in cages. What a dark, dark example Australia has set to the world.
I apologise once again to Senator McKim. Unfortunately, so many irregular things have been occurring in the chamber today that I missed the precise bill he was referring to when he commenced his remarks. But I was intending to address this report, Report No. 6 of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee, for a different but somewhat related reason, which is why I sought that clarity. Senator McKim is referring to issues that we've dealt with throughout this parliament and indeed the last parliament in relation to our approach to counterterrorism and national security issues. And the point that hasn't been raised here but that of course was discussed in the Selection of Bills Committee is that this bill has been to the PJCIS, so parliamentary scrutiny has been provided. I understand that the Australian Greens have some issues in that respect—not that Senator McKim necessarily outlined them here, but I do note what those issues are.
I was seeking to make a broader point in relation to the role of this committee. And whilst some of the crossbenchers are here I do think, given what has occurred this morning, that this is a point that is critical to be highlighted. The general approach to this committee—aside from the point I just made about PJCIS, about security, counterterrorism and issues of that character—as a general rule is that any individual senator can seek to have a matter referred to committee. The reason for that is that each individual senator, quite aside from party groupings, should have the capacity to look in detail at any bill that comes before the Senate. Indeed, I hope we continue this tradition as the house of review. But what's quite extraordinary and what this issue highlights is how the capacity for each individual senator to express a position in relation to a bill was ripped away from us yesterday and today. I hope those senators who cooperated with the government are not going to use this as their next area of attack on democracy, that it's not going to be another way in which this strange crossbench undermines the function of the Australian parliament, because critical to the Australian parliament is our capacity to review legislation.
I never thought I'd be standing in this place saying that critical to this parliament is a senator's capacity to speak on a bill. I never thought I'd be standing in this place and seeing what occurred earlier today, where senators who changed their position on a bill and determined not to insist on the amendments that the Senate had previously made did not get an opportunity to speak or did not seek the call, did not speak in this chamber as to why they changed their position on a policy issue. This will be an interesting question, and I hope I don't have to wait to hear the answer on the radio. So, not only did they not explore the critical policy issues around this tax plan but, indeed, they didn't even justify why they changed their position. Instead, they stitched up a deal with the government to provide camouflage which they hoped might protect them. I don't think it will. I think the Australian electorate is wise enough about our democracy to understand that the positions taken by some of the minor parties here are untenable. They think this parliament is going to operate in a way where we have the Leader of the Government in the Senate directing traffic in the way he was this morning. He was directing traffic in the way he said, 'Five minutes.' I hope we've got the camera footage of what occurred here today, because it has made the Senate function as a farce.
I go back to my point about the Selection of Bills Committee. This report, although it is rarely focused on in any detail by the time it reaches this chamber, is critical to our function. The precedent we have around any senator being able to refer a matter to a committee for detailed scrutiny is critical. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the report of the scrutiny of bills and also to outline why the opposition has decided to support the referral of the bills. Specifically, I'm referring to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Maintaining Income Thresholds) Bill 2018 and the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018. This house that we are in here is a house of review—that's what this house does. The government has sought to gag debate on another bill today. We've seen that here today. We saw it yesterday, and we've seen it in the even more extreme today.
I believe that these bills should be open to scrutiny by not only the Senate but the community. The community should have access through the process of these bills being referred to committees—people out in the community who are stakeholders who have more information about some of these things than we do here—because it's part of a learning process for us to pick up information from stakeholders who deal with issues on a day-to-day basis and to hear from people who are affected by bills. That's why the opposition has decided to support the referral of these bills here today.
We've seen that this government—the Turnbull government, those on the other side of this chamber—cannot be trusted to allow scrutiny of bills. This is the problem we've got. We've seen it all morning where the government, over on that side, have continually gagged debate. We've seen how they've corralled the independent senators and those others up over on that other side and pulled them into line to vote with them, without us or any senators in this place having an opportunity, if they wished to, to make a contribution to the debate. That's not how this chamber has run in the past, and that's not how it should be run into the future. Quite frankly, the government should be absolutely ashamed of the way that they have conducted themselves over the last day or so.
I might also say that the Independents and the minor parties who have not stood up to vote against the legislation—to get up and have a say—should be ashamed as well. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. The people of South Australia will be very disappointed with Centre Alliance. They will be absolutely disappointed that Centre Alliance did not get the chance to put their positions up. Now Centre Alliance have rolled over completely and voted with this government.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation party have completely rolled over and capitulated in this chamber to the government. I don't know what sort of a deal they've got out of it, but the people that they purport to stand up for in Queensland, I hope, will be standing up, rallying around and arguing that what they've done is absolutely outrageous. I hope they will send that very strong message to the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. They go out onto the streets of Queensland and say, 'We care about the workers, we care about individuals and we care about low-paid workers,' and then they come in here, do a dirty deal with the government, roll over and agree to tax cuts that will disadvantage low-paid workers. That's what they've just voted for: to absolutely disadvantage low-paid workers. I say: shame on them. Shame on them all! It's outrageous that we have workers in this country who earn significantly less than the people in here but it's us in here, and others who are on high incomes, who are actually going to get the advantage of what that lot over there have passed, joined by those from the Centre Alliance party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation party and several independents.
Can I take this opportunity to commend Senator Storer on his position and his stance. Thank heavens he's an Independent and standing on his own. He deserves respect and support, which he should get from the many voters who used to support the Nick Xenophon-Centre Alliance team. (Time expired)
Today is not a shining example of the work of the Senate. It's not a day that we can hold up as an example of the Senate chamber operating at its finest. I'm a great believer in our parliamentary democracy. I believe that this forum is a centre point for the nation's debate on very, very important matters. Today, unfortunately, we saw the reputation of the Senate traduced.
I particularly want to highlight the fact that the Centre Alliance party, in its performance today, certainly did not live up to the goals and aspirations of its founder, former Senator Nick Xenophon. We all had our differences with former Senator Xenophon in terms of his policy positions on a range of matters but there was always one thing that former Senator Xenophon was very, very strict on, and that was that he would not support a gag. He understood that this place is a forum for debate and for trying to fully explore all of the issues that need to be looked at, whether they are bills or important matters of the day. Former Senator Xenophon was a stickler for ensuring that the proper processes were observed when it came to debate. It is extremely disappointing to find that the Centre Alliance senators did not live up to that aspiration of their party. I would hazard a guess as to say that that will probably count against them when next they face the people.
It's also very disappointing that we saw Senator Hanson in her position. As a senator from Queensland, I know there are many Queenslanders in certain parts of the state who see Senator Hanson as a person who reflects some of their views, and, perhaps, some of the disaffection that voters have with major parties. It is extremely disappointing to find that Senator Hanson, on this occasion, has decided to vote with the government. But it's not surprising, in one sense, because we know from Senator Hanson's track record that she has voted with the government around 90 per cent of the time—I haven't looked at the statistics recently but that's the sort of level that we're talking about. That's not something that the average Queensland voter is well aware of, and I'm sure that that's something that they're about to become very much aware of.
What we want to see in this place is proper process apply. We want to see the committees operating as they should. We want to see fulsome debate, particularly when we're talking about things such as a bill which is of the order of $144 billion in terms of loss of revenue to the Commonwealth. I get the point that this is money of the people in terms of their income tax, but we are talking about the issue of the budget of the Commonwealth. This has a major impact on the finances of the Commonwealth. It was only four short years ago that this government was talking about the 'debt and deficit disaster' and saying that we had to have all sorts of swathes of cuts affecting vulnerable people. But now we see that that's gone out the window. We see the fact that gross debt has crashed through the $500 billion mark. We're seeing handouts being given to the top end of town.
The government does not respect our right to debate these important issues. The actions of the government today have been deplorable. What I say is that we need to have an election. We want to bring on an election. We need a Labor government to restore fairness to this country. We need a Labor government to restore fairness to this chamber, a government that would respect the proper processes to ensure that the people have all of these issues properly ventilated and we come out with a proper process here.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to withdraw a disallowance notice.
Leave granted.
Pursuant to standing order 78(1), I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on 21 June 2018 to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for 21 June 2018, proposing that items (1) and (2) of schedule 1 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Hammerhead Shark) Regulations 2018, made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, be disallowed.
Senator Whish-Wilson, notice has already been provided. What I need you to do, if you wish to withdraw it, is to seek leave to actually withdraw the motion.
Okay. I've just read it out, and I seek leave to actually withdraw that motion.
In the absence of any other senator wishing to take up that motion, that motion will be withdrawn. That is withdrawn, thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson.
I move:
That—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business, except for the Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill 2018, be considered from 12.45 pm today and that order of the day no. 6 (Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018) be called on first; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
For the convenience of senators, I indicate that the effect of this motion is to give effect to the order proposed in the amendment circulated in the name of Senator Wong for non-controversial business today. We assume that's an indication from the opposition of the priority they place on seeing the veteran-centric reforms passed through this parliament, and we of course are happy and eager to see them passed as well.
I would ask that the motion that Senator Birmingham referred to be circulated to the chamber. I understand that it's different to the one that's been circulated in the name of Senator Wong in relation to this order. I think there's a paragraph (b), if I heard correctly, which differs, which reflects, in part, past cooperation that exists in relation to how we manage this part of the program. I don't think that Senator Birmingham should be able to proceed with what is a clear difference in the position between the government and the opposition on this simply by reading a motion that is different to the one that has been circulated. We haven't seen the motion that he's moved.
I'll call the minister to allow him to respond to that query. If not, I will proceed with putting the motion, because that is the motion that is before me, unless Senator Birmingham would like to respond.
Just to respond very quickly, the effect of the motion that I read is very clearly to ensure that the order of business, when the Senate reaches non-controversial legislation at 12.45 pm today, would be the order as listed in the amendment circulated in the name of Senator Wong. That would deal with, as is proposed, all of the bills on the order of business with the exception of the Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill and it would give priority to the veteran-centric reforms bill. The standard part (b) of the motion that is usually moved is there, that government business be called upon should all of the non-controversial bills be dealt with. Of course, consistent with practice, it would be open to any senator to ask that the two parts be voted upon separately.
I think it's important to highlight this issue and I still think it's important for senators to have in writing before us the motion that's being put, which is why I circulated the motion in the name of Senator Wong. There is an important issue here, and Senator Birmingham now has—
Senator Collins, this is not a debate on the motion. I'm taking this as a point of clarification although that, obviously, doesn't really exist in the standing orders. The minister has effectively closed the debate with the response there.
No, he hasn't closed the debate.
That is my advice. We're not debating the motion, because you are on your feet again. I took the minister responding to your query and I am now taking this as a further query of the minister, or a response to that, to facilitate the operation of the chamber. But, other than that, I am required to follow standing orders and put the motion to a vote.
I can speak to the motion.
Are we now moving into debate on the motion? It was put to me that the previous—
I'm happy for my contribution at this stage to be dealt with as either. It can be a further point of clarification on where we are with amendments that haven't been circulated in the chamber, which is pretty poor practice, because—unlike what Senator Birmingham said—it is different to the one that was circulated in the name of Senator Wong—
To facilitate the operation of the chamber, Senator Collins—
or I'm happy to do it as part of this debate—
Senator Collins, please. I'm going to insist that when I'm speaking all senators remain silent. It is a habit that has crept in this week and it does prohibit other senators from—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
I'm allowed to interrupt a senator from the chair, Senator Collins. I was about to grant your request—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
I was about to respond to your request. Please let me conclude before there's further interaction. I took your first query as seeking clarification from the minister. It is a fair point you raise. He responded to that. If you now wish to debate the motion you can.
Thank you, Mr President. As I indicated, I was happy to deal with that issue as either a further clarification or, indeed, debating the motion. I'm happy to deal with my concerns about what's before us at the moment, which is essentially an amendment moved by the government instead of the amendment that the opposition circulated that was described by the minister—I'll be careful with my language here; we're all tired—in a way which was not full and frank in terms of the differences between the two positions that have been put forward.
Part (b) is a procedural mechanism that in the past has been agreed by the Senate to allow for more government business time if we finish non-controversial legislation. Again, with this debate which we've moved into, the 20 minutes that's allowable for senators to debate a motion in relation to business, the issue here is to highlight that there are a range of mechanisms by which this Senate works that involve cooperation and sleight of hand should not be part of it.
This is a message to CA as well: if we allow ministers to just introduce amendments without circulating them, to pretend they're the same as the ones that have been circulated by the opposition and for their own purposes remove one element—and I think it's pretty clear to all parties here that the way in which the opposition would ordinarily cooperate with the government of the day to facilitate business is a time that is passed—you will feel the burden of that in relation to pairing, in relation to procedure, in relation to how bills progress and in relation to routine issues around which bills are considered non-controversial. This is the territory that this government has taken us into today and this is the issue that CA in particular or, indeed, Pauline Hanson's One Nation should understand. This Senate usually functions effectively as a house of review, and this is a very important principle that they have compromised.
So we have a long list—indeed, a very long list—of non-controversial legislation that the government would like to be able to progress this week and next week. And, before yesterday and today, the opposition was happy to cooperate and ensure that that could occur. When Minister Birmingham referred to removing aged care, that was because it became apparent—and I think it was actually Senator Leyonhjelm, rather than the opposition, who had the issue on that one. And Senator Leyonhjelm has arranged for aged care not to proceed as non-controversial legislation. We then propose that it's a fairly lengthy list and that some of the critical bills that really do need to proceed here—the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018 and the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018—were really matters that we needed to guarantee be dealt with during non-controversial legislation. The rest of them, though—
Senator Bushby interjecting—
I'm sorry, Senator; what was that?
Sit down and allow us to get on with it.
I'm sorry, but, as I pointed out, I will not be told by you or anyone else in this chamber to just sit down and get on with it.
Well, you're going to have to.
Order!
Oh, you're going to continue are you? Mr President, either deal with him—
I just called order.
Good.
Don't instruct me, Senator Collins.
I'm not instructing you. I am complaining that there is the government whip interjecting on my contributions.
And I called him to order before.
Thank you.
If you request the protection of the chair, I'm more than happy to grant it, but I would appreciate it not being an instruction. Senator Collins, continue.
Maybe I'll ask more politely so it will be clear to you that it wasn't an instruction, but let's just say the hours this Senate has worked so far this week do not facilitate the courtesy and goodwill that ordinarily all senators would function with. And, equally, it is quite provocative when the minister, unfortunately, continues with the pattern of behaviour he's demonstrated in a range of other policy areas where he is very, very selective with the information that he provides.
I can remind senators here, of course, of the complaints of people like Catholic Education. What have they said about this minister? 'He's not up-front.' How was he with this amendment? 'He was not up-front.' He was trying to con this chamber into a procedure where he knows that it's on the basis of cooperation that we move on to government business once we finish non-controversial legislation. And, indeed, Senators, the Procedure Committee didn't meet this week because it was diverted by this government's procedures. And, indeed, the Procedure Committee, if it was functioning effectively, would continue to deal with matters that complicate or compromise the efficiency of this chamber. I remember earlier this week we spent about, I think, an hour and 20 minutes in formal motions. I do have some sympathy and, indeed, empathy with the government that there are elements of the procedures in this chamber that make it very difficult to consider government business. But what this opposition will not do after the stunt performed yesterday and today is cooperate on that matter. You cannot expect the opposition to cooperate in processes to establish effective movement of legislation or government business when you perform stunts like that which just occurred.
So, we will move, after the veterans' affairs bill, to the list—it will be an even longer list, I suspect, next week—of non-controversial legislation. But senators should understand that this part of the program to deal with non-controversial legislation is one built around cooperation amongst senators and a process behind the scenes outside the chamber that lets us all understand those bills that we may or may not have an issue on. This section of the program coincides with when sensible senators are getting an opportunity to go and have something to eat in what will potentially be a very long day if we look at the rest of the sitting week so far—and indeed, Mr President, I think I'm still awaiting your advice on whether the government is equally bound by the approach on suspensions of standing orders in terms of their ability to rearrange the program. But it's a level of cooperation that is unlikely to continue. The government's capacity to rearrange the program and to rely on cooperation to deal with noncontroversial legislation will not automatically occur, and we will complain if the government seeks, in a somewhat shifty way, to replace the motion that we've circulated with another one which is materially different.
Mr President, I could insist that their amendment be circulated. I think it's quite inappropriate that it wasn't—oh, it has been? Very good. So senators can now see the difference I'm complaining about, can understand why, rather than proceeding with Senator Wong's motion, the government did it differently themselves, and can understand that the government's trying to pull the wool over the eyes of senators procedurally again and revert back to what Senator Birmingham just described as 'standard part (b)'. Well, we're not on board for standard part (b), Senator Birmingham, and we're not on board for a range of things in relation to how this Senate usually cooperates. We will not allow stunts like the ones that occurred yesterday and today to become the regular pattern and routine of this place.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Indeed, as I can hear now, we are still facing confusion about what really is before us and how we're going to proceed. Senator Birmingham said that, if we want to vote separately on part (b), we can do that. Indeed, I think we should. I think it's important to highlight that the government shouldn't be able to sneak in a mechanism that's generally done by cooperation across the chamber. I think we'll make that point on many, many things in the days ahead, because the opposition's cooperation, the things that ordinarily allow for this parliament to function, should not be taken for granted when we had, as I've said before, the Leader of the Government sitting here directing traffic, with five minutes here; I'm surprised he didn't go down to two minutes there and four minutes here. It was incredible.
So what did we see earlier about the brave new Senate? I'll be more polite than perhaps some of the interjections were at the time, but essentially what we saw was Pauline Hanson's One Nation coming to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and saying: 'What is it we do? How are we proceeding? What are we supposed to do?' We saw CA come over—in fact, I saw worse than that this morning. I saw the Leader of the Government in the Senate not even get out of his seat. Poor Senator Patrick was left bending over to him trying to clarify even what is meant to occur. The body language in this place has become unbelievable. I don't know why Senator Cormann doesn't even understand the civil courtesy of just getting up out of his seat to talk to one of his colleagues, particularly one he's really reliant upon, because it's these deals that determine traffic in this place now—these deals, as we saw, that they refused to outline. They refused to describe what is the arrangement about who's allowed to speak here—which senators are allowed to speak in this place. Senator Cormann refused to even clarify what the arrangement was, so party leaders had no idea. 'Do I have five minutes? Do I have 15? Oops, it was meant to have been 15.' Then Senator Cormann glibly tries to backtrack and says, 'Well, actually, we'll give you 15.' But it wasn't on the basis of what the arrangement was meant to be. He runs some glib line: 'Oh, Senator Wong was just so entertaining!' How patronising. That is extraordinarily patronising.
But, as I said, Senator Cormann now thinks he's in control. He now thinks that because he succeeded with his dummy spit he can do extraordinary things. We will take every opportunity to highlight each and every one of those extraordinary things. If that means highlighting that Senator Birmingham is once again practising sleight of hand, that the motion he's moving is actually materially different to what he's suggesting, we will force it to be circulated in the chamber. We will force him to concede, 'Oops, there is this difference that I didn't describe,' and we will force the Senate to deal with those issues separately. I'm not allowing the government to co-opt opposition motions. I'm not foolish enough to not identify that there is a material difference between them. And Senator Birmingham should know better. He thinks—
He's contemptuous.
You're right, Senator O'Neill: he is contemptuous. He thinks that because to some extent he has, to date, gotten away with this sort of behaviour with very important policy sectors here in Australia, Catholic Education being the example—Mr President, you're aware of these issues in some detail; you're aware of how upset education stakeholders are at this minister's behaviour. And I don't need to revisit all those atrocities, because they are hotly felt. And even if Malcolm Turnbull is ultimately forced into new arrangements, they won't forget. They will not forget. Indeed, I know even from some of the suggestions that come forward about how the opposition should address issues in the school education space—they're still in that space, Senator Birmingham. They haven't moved on about how things might improve in the future—no: there is so much anger and resentment that I don't think they will forget what occurred here anytime soon. Catholic Education will be in the press—as they were yesterday, as they are today and as they will be tomorrow—highlighting how poorly you have conducted the policy discussions, or indeed nondiscussions, that should have occurred with the major education reforms you are attempting to move forward by sleight of hand.
This Senate knows this because we spent hour upon hour upon hour working through those issues. And probably a more effective crossbench at the time were able to achieve the revisiting of many issues and significant concessions and processes, some of which are still afoot. In fact, maybe this is today's sleight of hand that I should refer to, because this motion isn't the first one. The other one was the article in Fairfax today, in which it is suggested that a particular report about the School Resourcing Board and their consideration of matters—
Order! Senator Birmingham on a point of order.
Just as a matter of interest for Senator Collins, it's important to be aware that there is a 12:45 hard marker, and if the opposition wishes to see the veteran-centric reforms dealt with today then the motion before the chair does need to be dealt with prior to then.
This motion needs to be dealt with before 12:45? Sure.
If you want to support the veteran-centric—
Well, we will. Let's do it.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham regarding the rearrangement of business be agreed to.
Sorry—in two parts.
You would like (a) and (b) put separately?
Yes.
I put the question that all parts of the motion other than part (b) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I'll now put part (b) of the motion, that:
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
The effect of that is that we would return to other government business if we conclude the veterans' affairs bill and a number of other bills. The question is that part (b) of the motion be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I rise today to make a contribution to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018, a very important piece of legislation which contains several measures that seek to improve outcomes for those who have served and their loved ones. When an individual undertakes to serve their country, we in turn make a commitment to them and their families that we will support them post their time in the ADF. Labor supports the measures in this bill because they're a step towards recognising this commitment. Schedule 1 recognises the importance of education and retraining post service, particularly for those whose service has had a greater impact on them. These changes will provide financial security to those on incapacity payments undertaking further study as part of their rehabilitation plan with DVA. Currently payments reduce to 75 per cent after 45 weeks; this measure will maintain these payments at 100 per cent while they are undertaking approved full-time study. This change will mean that these individuals can focus on their education without worrying about their finances.
Further education and training can be very important, particularly in circumstances such as these when the individual has had no choice but to leave the ADF and reorientate their lives. The support will make a difference for these individuals, assisting them to retrain and find meaningful employment post service. Finding and maintaining employment after leaving the ADF is important for so many reasons. Employment is much more than simply financial security; it provides structure, community, a sense of purpose and belonging. However, the statistics show us that, of the 5,500 veterans who transition out of Defence each year, about one in three fail to find or maintain employment. Best estimates cite the total unemployment rate of veterans as approximately 30 per cent. Even those who didn't medically discharge face a jobless rate of 11.2 per cent, which is almost twice the national unemployment rate. In addition, those who do find employment have experienced an average drop in their incomes of about 30 per cent, and 19 per cent are underemployed in jobs that don't meet their capabilities. Veterans have a large range of skills and set of experiences, but these figures show that these skills and experiences of great value that they bring to our local communities upon return from service are simply, practically, not adequately valued by civil society.
It's for this reason that Labor has committed to a $121 million veterans employment program. Our program is not about charity; it's about ensuring the wealth of skills and experience that a veteran has is not lost in translation to civilian life. There are four elements to our program which will assist those transitioning out of Defence. Firstly we will provide eligible businesses with training grants of up to $5,000 in order to help veterans gain the skills and experience that they need to obtain a civilian job. While businesses are at least notionally open to employing veterans, there can be specific short-term skill gaps or a lack of specific experience, which can act as a barrier to employment for an otherwise suitable veteran applicant. For example, the veteran might be one unit shy of a certificate or fail to meet the minimum two years prior experience, meaning they won't meet an arbitrary tick-and-flick assessment of their capacity in the job-and-person process and will be immediately discounted. These $5,000 grants are designed to overcome this barrier. In addition, Labor will work with the industry advisory committee to develop and provide proper resources to a national campaign which will highlight the many benefits and transferable skills of those leaving the ADF and encourage businesses to employ veterans.
Secondly, Labor will establish a service which will provide greater individualised and tailored support to transitioning veterans over a longer period of time. This service will provide one-on-one support and advice to transitioning ADF members, including a comprehensive audit of the skills they have obtained during their service, and ensure appropriate civil recognition is obtained. It will also work with veterans to identify other barriers to a successful transition to employment, such as secure housing and psychosocial supports. Importantly, this service will continue to be available to those who have left the ADF for a period of five years, enabling veterans to return to the service if their circumstances change and they need additional support.
Thirdly, our plan will reduce the length of service required to access the higher levels of support through the Career Transition Assistance Scheme. Labor's proposal reduces the qualifying period for the extra education or training assistance down from the current requirement of 12 years service to five years service and the top-up level of assistance down from 18 years service to 15 years service. In addition, we will increase the funding available to individuals and allow for greater flexibility in the way members use this funding, such as enabling multiple qualifications, to achieve their career goals.
Lastly, we will work with the states and territories and peak industry bodies to identify opportunities for greater recognition of the many skills of our ADF members. The program run in Queensland which translates rank and length of service into a university entrance rank is one of these opportunities. While not every member who leaves the ADF will want to go to university, this program smooths the processes for those who are wishing to pursue further study and, importantly, recognises their experience and skills.
The changes in schedule 1 align well with this element, which would then provide greater financial security to those who are undertaking this study as part of a rehabilitation plan with DVA. Labor understand that this schedule is expected to assist 150 people per year, including those who are already undertaking study as part of their rehabilitation plan. Labor support this schedule that will provide greater financial security for veterans on incapacity payments and their families while they complete their studies.
Schedule 2 of the bill will create a new suicide prevention pilot which will provide greater support to those who have been hospitalised after attempted suicide. Those with suicidal ideation or who might be at increased risk of suicide are also eligible because of their mental health or other factors. This important pilot will provide coordinated support to ensure veterans are accessing treatment and social support to reduce their risk of suicide and enhance their quality of life. It will provide intensive and assertive management services to support a veteran after they have been discharged from hospital. The type of support that is being offered would include support to access other relevant government entities and non-government treatment and services. The aim, of course, is to reduce risk and to massively improve outcomes for those who are involved.
The two suicide prevention trials being coordinated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs are a result of both the National Mental Health Commission's review of services available to veterans and members of the Australian Defence Force and the recommendations made during the Senate's inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, which was completed last year. The National Mental Health Commission recommended step-down services that take into account factors that may lead to suicide, such as primary health, financial stress, lack of housing and lack of employment. These factors were considered heavily during the Senate inquiry, which received 458 submissions from the ex-service community and other interested parties. I take the opportunity to thank each one of those members of the ex-service community, in particular, for their contribution to this important debate.
The Senate inquiry process was particularly important as it enabled veterans and their loved ones to highlight the issues they have experienced and to identify what we can do better to support them post their time in the ADF. Labor supported the establishment of the Senate inquiry. We're pleased to see these recommendations being progressively implemented, and we urge the government to maintain the momentum. Labor is supportive of measures which seek to provide greater assistance to veterans, particularly those who are struggling in their time post the ADF. As such, we offer our full support to the establishment of this trial and we look forward to seeing the results of both this trial and other trials currently underway.
Schedule 3 of the bill seeks to assist those recently widowed by providing them additional time to make a decision about how they would like to receive compensation. Currently, partners have six months to decide whether they would like to receive their compensation as a weekly payment or convert the whole or part of the payment into a lump sum. Where there is the ability for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to make an extension of time, this requires an application in writing. The change that is proposed in schedule 3 will give partners two years to make this decision, giving these individuals in very difficult circumstances sufficient time to decide. The commission will also be able to extend this time for consideration beyond two years where they deem it appropriate. That will be subject to application. For example, such a situation might be where there are complicated family law issues to be resolved. The government have advised this came about during conversations with ex-service organisations. It is a logical and compassionate change, and we offer our full support to it.
Schedule 4 amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the VEA, in order to extend the eligibility of the Long Tan Bursary scheme to the grandchildren of Vietnam veterans. The Long Tan Bursary scheme offers 37 scholarships of up to $12,000 over three years to the children of Vietnam veterans to assist with post-secondary school education and training. While the criteria for applications won't change, this amendment will enable more individuals to apply for that support to help those students continue their study. Priority will be given to supporting those children of Vietnam veterans. Labor is supportive of this measure, which recognises the sacrifices that our brave men made in Vietnam and assists their descendants to undertake further study.
Schedule 5 makes a provision to ensure that a submariner who served on a special submarine operation between 1 July 1978 and 31 December 1992 is deemed to have operational service for any period they served on a submarine during this period. This will simplify the support available to those individuals who served during this period and who have a claim with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We are also supportive of this measure because it formally recognises the service that these individuals undertook during the period.
The final schedule of the bill simplifies the process for veterans applying for compensation under the MRCA during a needs assessment. Under the MRCA, a claim for compensation is distinct from a claim for liability. In many cases, compensation is claimed concurrently with the liability by a member or former member indicating on the liability claim form that they're seeking compensation. However, in some cases, a claim for liability will be made without an application for compensation. During this process, a needs assessment will be carried out. These are often conducted over the telephone. During this call, a member or former member will sometimes state that they would like to seek some form of compensation under the MRCA. This currently requires the individual to put in a separate application. Under the changes in the piece of legislation being discussed here this morning, a verbal indication that they are seeking compensation under the act will now be considered an application. That being said, they will still be able to make a claim in writing should they wish to do so.
Labor is supportive of measures which make the claim process easier for veterans, as long as it doesn't disadvantage them. Issues around information provided during this needs assessment have been raised with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs by advocates and members of the ex-service community. These individuals have raised concerns about the needs assessment being used to determine compensation claims. According to advocates, in their experience, information provided during this assessment has been used to decline the severity of claims further down the track. For example, the assessment will ask a veteran if they can still mow the lawn. The veteran replies that they can, without detailing that, following this activity, they experience several days of restricted or no movement. So while the veteran may technically be able to mow the lawn, they are severely impacted by doing so. According to advocates, a simple answer to that question is then pointed to further down the track and used to assert that the veteran is able to undertake the activity, which is simply not the case.
Labor has raised this issue with the government and requested that it ensure that it is clear to those applying what the answers to these seemingly innocuous questions will be used for. Subsequently, the government has advised that the needs assessments are not used by the DVA to determine compensation but, instead, are used to identify forms of support and assistance that the veteran may be eligible for or benefit from, such as household assistance or rehabilitation. That being said, the government has taken this feedback on board and will be providing further clarification to veterans applying online that this assessment will not be used to calculate compensation rates. It is these assurances that enable Labor to support this measure, which seeks to make the complicated claims process easier for veterans and their loved ones.
Labor is supportive of this bill, which seeks to improve outcomes for veterans and to smooth processes. As I said at the beginning, when an individual undertakes to serve in the ADF, we in turn commit to looking after them and their loved ones. These measures, in particular those aimed at providing increased support for those whose service has had a greater impact on them, seek to ensure that we recognise this obligation to our ex-serving community.
I take the opportunity in the time remaining to me to speak with pride about knowing a former veteran, who was a former student of mine as well: a great man by the name of Mark Lang, who lives on the Central Coast in the same community in which I live. I still run into his mother, Debbie; I remember first meeting her at parent-teacher interviews. Mark has served for a very long period of time in the Australian Defence Force, and in fact he made an effort at one stage to return to me and showed up at school in his uniform with great pride in his service. Mark has met with me on a number of occasions in my office. He's a powerful advocate for his mates who have served this nation with pride and distinction in many theatres overseas. At this time Mark is particularly unwell, so I want to recognise his service. I want to recognise his advocacy and the advocacy of men, women and families across this nation who continue to make sure that those who return from serving this country are treated in ways that engender further respect for the service that they've given and give them access to the services and opportunities that they need. I give our full support to this bill, and I commend the bill to the house. (Time expired)
I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018, which contains a series of amendments to legislation which affects our veterans community. This is a non-controversial bill, which means it has the support of both sides of the Senate, as it should.
This bill does a number of valuable things: it amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act to provide former members of the Australian Defence Force with incapacity payments at 100 per cent of their normal weekly earnings where they are studying full time as part of their approved rehabilitation plan; it amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to create a Veteran Suicide Prevention Pilot aimed at providing coordinated care to veterans who have attempted suicide, have suicide ideation or are in crisis; it deems a submariner's service on a special submarine operation between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992 to be operational service; and it extends the eligibility for the Long Tan Bursary scheme to the grandchildren of a veteran who has operational service in Vietnam. As that conflict recedes further into history, obviously it was sensible to extend it to grandchildren rather than just the children of the veterans. The bill amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to allow a wholly dependent partner up to two years to decide whether to take a lump sum, a pension, or a combination of both as compensation for their partner's death, and to enable veterans to lodge a claim for compensation orally.
The section of the bill I particularly want to comment on is the section which amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act to create the Veteran Suicide Prevention Pilot aimed at providing coordinated care to veterans who have attempted suicide, have suicide ideation or are in crisis. These amendments would create a pilot scheme for a service aimed at improving the mental health services available to veterans and to prevent veterans' suicide. The Veteran Suicide Prevention Pilot, which is also known as the Mental Health Clinical Management Pilot as part of the 2017-18 budget measure 'Suicide prevention pilots', will provide intensive and assertive management services to support a veteran's mental health outcomes after they have been discharged from a hospital following an attempted suicide crisis or to support those who may be at increased risk of suicide because of their mental health or other factors. This will include support to access other relevant government and non-government treatment and services that will help reduce the risk of suicide and enhance their quality of life.
This is an issue I have spoken on before. In an earlier speech I pointed out that, since the Vietnam War and the traumatic effects that service in Vietnam had on many—perhaps the majority—of those who served there, we have become much more aware of the mental health needs of veterans. From virtually nothing in the 1960s, we now spend nearly $250 million a year on mental health services for ADF members, Defence veterans and their families. This includes services provided by doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers as well as online information and support services. It includes the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, which provides free and confidential counselling and support to ADF members, veterans and families at 26 centres around Australia.
The VVCS serves more than 27,000 people every year. This parliament in recent years has spent quite a lot of time on these issues, as it should, and I want to highlight an inquiry that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has just started in into the transition to civilian life of men and women who have served in the ADF. That inquiry is going to look at three specific areas: the barriers that prevent people from effectively engaging with ADF members, the Department of Defence and the Veterans' Affairs to provide more effective support to ADF personnel as they transition out of service; the model of mental health care while in the ADF service and through the transition period to the Department of Veterans' Affairs; the efficacy of whole-of-government support to facilitate the effective transition to employment in civilian life of men and women who have served in the ADF; and any matters that relate to the above three areas. These are important because, the more light that is shone on these areas, the more information we have and the better we are able to deal with these issues.
Something that the US Department of Veterans Affairs does is provide long-term veterans and the people who might employ them with tax credits in a scheme where under the returning heroes tax credit they get US$5,600 for employing veterans and under the wounded warriors tax credit they get approximately double the credits for longer-term unemployed veterans with service-connected disabilities. Obviously, there are a far greater number of veterans in the US, but it is of interest and for the good of society that there is a smooth transition from the ADF into civilian life, because we have, tragically, seen the instances where that hasn't been successful. I'm thinking of the veterans and the witnesses who came to speak to the Senate committee's inquiry into veteran suicide.
Australia does provide veterans with free mental health services. Veterans have access to full cover for five of the most common mental health conditions: post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse and substance abuse. They don't have to prove that these conditions were caused by their service; as soon as they contact the department, these mental health needs are met without questions being asked. That is an expensive commitment but, I think, a necessary one, and I hope the measure outlined in this bill will improve our capacity to meet the needs of veterans who are at risk of suicide.
In estimates a couple of weeks ago, the Department of Veterans' Affairs gave an update on the technology updates and improvements that the department is undergoing. Hopefully, there will be a greater synergy between the systems contained within the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, because it is likely to be very helpful for veterans when there's a full integration of those systems.
In the Senate's inquiry into suicide and suicide prevention by veterans and ex-service personnel, we heard from veterans, family members and support organisations about their experiences with suicide among former members of the Australian Defence Force. We learnt that suicide among former ADF members causes more deaths than overseas operational service does. One of the most touching, poignant things I have seen about this is on the wall of honour in the Middle East area of operations. It now contains not only those who have died in active service but also those who have committed suicide upon their return from active service. I think that's an important acknowledgement to make.
We learnt in that inquiry that the overall suicide rate among defence veterans is not greatly different from the rate in the general population once we control for age and gender, but that is a big qualification because the veteran population is predominantly male and men are far more likely to commit suicide than women. We learnt in that inquiry that we do not have the exact figures for the number of suicides and attempted suicides among former ADF members, but a recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study found that between 2001 and 2015 there were 325 certified suicides amongst ADF veterans, although the real figure may well be higher. That is the importance of the technology updates that the department is undergoing. It will be able to track people and former service personnel more adequately. It certainly doesn't do that now, but the hope is that, down the track, it will be able to do that.
We learnt that the group most at risk of suicide was young veterans involuntarily discharged due to physical or mental injury. This group exhibited suicide rates double that of the comparable national population. This suggests that our attention needs to be focused on the transition from service to civilian life, particularly among young men who have been involuntarily discharged for whatever reason. These men may suffer from a variety of psychological factors that may well dispose them to suicide.
The key finding of our report was that we currently have an inadequate infrastructure of support for those who are at risk. An accurate assessment of the impact of military service on the mental health of our veterans and the provision of appropriate services for them are a pressing issue, something that we need to address and now.
Some of the organisations that do work—outside of the department, for example—offer, for example, arts therapies. Recently I went to an exhibition which was held by ANVAM, which is a veterans arts society. That is actually going to be in Old Parliament House, I think, later on this year. I would suggest to people that they go to see it. Every piece of art is different, but every one has a point of view, and it does give an insight into how veterans are feeling and thinking and how they're making that transition. It's quite a powerful exhibition.
The report shows that we can do a much better job of fulfilling our responsibilities to our veterans, and this bill goes some way to doing that. Every suicide among former ADF members, whatever its cause, is a reminder of our obligation to protect those who have protected us. This bill before us represents some progress towards that goal, and that's why this side of the chamber is supporting it.
Before I commend the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018 to the house, could I just draw to the attention of the chamber a couple of things that were mentioned by those opposite in making their contributions. Can I put on the record some clarification in relation to a couple of things that were raised.
Firstly, there was a comment made by the shadow minister for veterans' affairs that the unemployment rate for veterans is approximately 30 per cent. It's important that we note in this chamber that the latest research on veterans and unemployment would indicate that, in the first 10 months from defence into civilian life, the unemployment rate is about eight per cent, which is obviously higher than the national average, but it's nowhere near the 30 per cent which has often been quoted. We can do better in partnership with the community, with the business sector and with industry, along with government agencies at all levels, to make sure more veterans make the transition into employment.
Another comment made by the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and, I believe, the member for Bass was about how DVA uses the particular information provided by veterans during the claim process, particularly the online claim process, MyService. I can confirm that the responses to questions about lifestyle and needs assessment are not used by DVA to determine compensation but are instead used to identify forms of support and assistance that the veteran may be entitled to. DVA has now updated the online page on MyService to make it clear that the information is optional and the answers are not used to calculate compensation rates.
Can I also draw to your attention—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that Senator Kitching made a comment in her contribution a minute ago that non-liability health care was for just five conditions. If you refer to the 2017-18 budget measures, you'll see that the non-liability health care is for all mental health conditions. With that, can I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (IMPROVED MEDICARE COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2018
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018 amends the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Dental Benefits Act 2008 and the National Health Act 1953 to implement measures announced in the 2017 budget to support the integrity of Medicare through improvements to the recovery arrangements for debts owed to the Commonwealth. These changes save $103.8 million over four years for reinvestment in Medicare.
The bill also makes amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to clarify that the jurisdiction of the Professional Services Review extends to corporate medical practices which contract rather than employ individual practitioners.
The amendments are supported by my compacts with the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. These compacts reflect shared principles that support a stronger, sustainable health system, including improved compliance processes to ensure Medicare overpayments are detected and recovered.
Compulsory offsetting and garnishee
While the majority of practitioners claim Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and dental benefits appropriately, some practitioners do not. Some practitioners claim incorrectly, are found by the Professional Services Review to have engaged in inappropriate practice or are found to have engaged in fraudulent claiming, and are required to make a repayment to the Commonwealth for incorrect claims.
However, only some practitioners who have a Medicare debt agree to enter into arrangements to repay the debt. Over $50 million in compliance debt is currently outstanding and some of these debts are worth over $1 million. Those that refuse to agree to a repayment arrangement are currently still able to claim benefits through Medicare, including receiving significant payments directly from the Commonwealth for bulk-billed services.
These amendments will allow for future bulk-billed claims to be reduced or offset by up to 20 per cent, to repay their debt to the Commonwealth. For those practitioners who do not bulk-bill, the amendments will allow garnisheeing of other funds owed to the practitioner who holds the debt, including funds held in bank accounts and income from employers. An offset or garnishee arrangement will only apply if all rights for review have expired and the practitioner does not agree to a repayment plan within 90 days. These new arrangements will start on 1 July 2018.
These changes will ensure that more practitioners repay their debts, allowing this money to be reinvested in new services under the Medicare Benefits Schedule and new listings on the PBS to ensure Medicare continues to provide more support to Australian patients than ever before.
No patients will be affected by these changes. Where practitioners engage in inappropriate practice, or claim incorrectly, they are responsible for the repayment of any excess Medicare payments, even if the rebate was paid directly to the patient or the person who incurred the expense on their behalf.
Improving the consistency of administrative arrangements across the three Acts
These amendments will reduce inconsistencies in record keeping requirements among different professional groups.
For the first time, allied health practitioners will face the same rules as doctors and be required to keep copies of referral documents for two years, and all practitioners will be required to keep copies of documents that were created as a condition of claiming the item.
The bill also addresses an anomaly where pharmacists are required to keep copies of prescriptions but not to produce them to substantiate claims.
Amendments will also apply compulsory administrative penalties on unpaid debts to dentists and pharmacists so they are treated the same as other Medicare practitioners.
These changes will ensure that instances of suspected incorrect billing can be investigated properly and any overpayments can be identified.
Professional Services Review
The Professional Services Review currently is able to review officers of organisations based on their influence over their employees' billing practices. Practitioners are increasingly employed as contractors. These amendments clarify that the jurisdiction of the PSR extends to officers of organisations that engage Medicare practitioners as contractors.
Organisational billing
The current legislation places all of the liability for Medicare claiming against an individual practitioner, except in clear cases of fraud. This reflects the old business model of single-doctor practices. However, in contemporary practice there has been an increase in the role of practices, corporate entities and hospitals in the billing of MBS services on behalf of individual practitioners.
The amendments will introduce a scheme where if there is an employment or other contractual relationship, the practitioner and their employer (or other related party) will each be responsible for the repayment of part of the compliance debt.
This change represents a significant shift, moving to a fairer distribution of the responsibility for getting billing right, and is supported by key stakeholders, including the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.
These new shared debt recovery arrangements will start on 1 July 2019. This will allow further time for consultation on the detail of the proportions to apply to the practitioner and employing or contracting organisation, which will be set out in regulations.
I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018. Labor is the party of Medicare. We invented it and we will always protect it. It's our universal public health insurance scheme. It's the heart and soul of our healthcare system, and it's the envy of many other countries around the world. It ensures Australians can access life-saving treatment when they need it without worry. More than 20 million of us access Medicare services every year, including GP visits, vital tests and scans and hospital treatments. Without a doubt, it's one of the most important programs the Commonwealth government delivers. It's fundamental, not just to our health system but to our economy and to our society. That's not to say it's perfect, but, of course, with a program this size there will always be problems and there will always be improvements that can be made.
Labor is always up for sensible improvements. This government bill implements a 2017 budget measure to improve the Medicare Benefits Schedule compliance and debt recovery practices, and it will result in an estimated combined saving over the forward estimates of $103 million. That money should, of course, be reinvested straight back into Medicare in a transparent way, rather than returned to the budget bottom line, but that is an issue I will return to later. This bill amends three acts, the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Dental Benefits Act 2008 and the National Health Act 1953. These technical changes will, hopefully, enable improved compliance by better targeting unusual business billing and improving the consistency of administrative arrangements.
I want to say at the outset that the vast majority of medical and allied health professionals that bill Medicare for services to their patients do the right thing. But we also know that there are increasingly commercial interests at play in some areas, so compliance is something we have to improve. Only 40 per cent of Medicare debts are currently recovered, meaning there's over $50 million in outstanding debt. There's obviously a need for some action in this space. These changes clarify that the Professional Services Review, which investigates Medicare and PBS compliance concerns, has jurisdiction over corporate medical practices that contract health providers as well as practices that employ providers, and the providers themselves. It introduces compulsory offsetting and garnishee provisions for providers who do not voluntarily agree to repayment plans within 90 days. At present, these providers are still able to claim full Medicare benefits even when they owe significant debts. Where a compliance debt is issued, both the employer and the contracted provider will be responsible for part of the debt, reflecting their shared responsibility for accurate billing.
This bill also makes record-keeping requirements consistent across different health professions. In particular, allied health providers will be required to keep copies of referrals for two years, just like doctors. Pharmacists will be required to produce prescriptions to justify queried claims, and dentists and pharmacists will face the same administrative penalties on unpaid debts as do other Medicare providers. Further detail will be set out in regulations, and the new arrangements will start on 1 July 2019. But, for now, I can say Labor will support this bill.
Like I said, we are always willing to support sensible improvements to Medicare. What we don't support is this government's overall approach to Medicare. It took two Labor governments more than two decades to shape and embed the Medicare that we know today. Many Australians today take Medicare for granted, as if it was always there. It's great that they have that attitude. That is exactly as it should be. Australians should be able to rely on Medicare whenever they need it, without worrying and without a second thought. But let's never forget that the conservatives opposed Medicare every step of the way. Labor had to fight hard to set it up, and we continue to fight hard to protect it.
We know that you cannot trust the conservatives with Medicare. They drone on constantly about their rock-solid commitment to it, but we know the truth. They have revealed it over decades. They hate it. They have tried to take it out many times. They want to dismantle it. They just don't believe in universal health care as Labor do. They dream of and implement wherever they can mechanisms to echo the American health system, where it's every man, woman and child for themselves, where people increasingly have to rely on private means to access basic health care, where people die or suffer for years because they cannot afford to see a doctor or go to a hospital and where you have to get out your credit card, rather than your Medicare card, when you visit the doctor. That's the Americanised model that the Liberal-National Party seek to inflict on this country. Hating Medicare is in their DNA. They might behave themselves for a while, because they know how much the Australian people value Medicare. Australia certainly sent that message out loud and clear at the last election when the government was plotting to outsource parts of Medicare to the private sector. Labor, of course, staunchly and vehemently opposed that move.
In the two years since that election, the government's been very busy trying to rewrite that history, pretending that it didn't happen, pretending that Labor made up its efforts to outsource parts of Medicare to the private sector. But that is a reality. It's a historical reality that the government will pretend didn't actually happen. Its defence is utter nonsense. This government was actively planning to outsource the Medicare payment system to a corporate player—one of the four big banks, perhaps, or maybe a private health fund? If we'd let them get away with it, it would have been the beginning of the end for Medicare as we know it. The government dropped its plan because Labor's tireless efforts to highlight the damage that it would have done to our health system pulled them back from the brink of implementation. It was because the Australian people agreed it was a terrible plan and punished this government for it. Eventually, as we all know, the Liberals, true to their DNA, will have another crack at Medicare. They'll come up with another scheme to undermine it, weaken it or to sell off parts of Medicare.
They've got so much form with their attacks on Medicare, over so many periods of their government. Remember, on the arrival of Mr Abbott, their first effort at the $7 co-payment. That was just a few years ago. That was an unprecedented attack on the universality and the accessibility of Medicare. It was effectively an attempt to end bulk-billing. Then too, it was Labor, it was the parliament and it was the Australian people who ultimately stopped the government going down that dark road. As is so often the case, we helped save the government from itself. The plan that they were attempting to implement revealed what's really in their hearts: to attack Medicare at every opportunity.
When they couldn't get their $7 co-payment through the parliament, they went for an alternative strategy: a freeze on indexation, which impacts every single doctor delivering health care in this country today. That freeze was implemented by this government on the fees that doctors receive and health professionals receive for the services that they provide. That freeze stuck while all the other costs of running a small business—that is what our doctors do; they have costs such as electricity and all of those costs that are attached with running a business, all with rising rents—all continued to rise. The freeze that this government implemented is still in place today. Again, under intense pressure from Labor, from doctors pushing and from the public pushing, Minister Hunt was forced to announce a fall in the freeze as recently as May 2016; but he still hasn't actually lifted a single element of it. Some elements will finally come off on 1 July, delivering GPs a paltry 55c increase in their rebate. It won't put a dent in soaring out-of-pocket costs in the health sector.
While the government continues to try to tell the Australian people that they love Medicare, other elements of the freeze that they have underway will remain in place until 2020. That's six years of slugging doctors and ultimately patients with that cost, simply because they want to access the healthcare system. The rebate freeze has saved this government billions of dollars, and they're banking the savings right now. Those are billions of dollars that should have gone to providing health care for Australians, but this government took those billions out. Meanwhile, we know that the latest Medicare data shows that the cost of seeing both your GP and your specialist is at a record high, and that is directly attributable to these Liberal cuts. The gap has expanded for Australians who simply need to get to a doctor, get seen and hopefully get well. For those who find themselves unwell and who have to go to a specialist, the cost of getting to a specialist has just grown and grown. The Liberal freeze is a key reason for that increasing gap.
The first three months of 2018 are pretty instructive. Australians paid an average out-of-pocket fee of $38.44 to see a GP. It is up to nearly $47 in some states and territories. The national figure has risen nearly $4 from $34.53 at the end of 2017. Out-of-pocket fees to see specialists have soared even higher. They were up to an average of $87.62 in the March quarter. That's up from $71.75 in the last three months of 2017, up nearly $16 in a quarter. In some jurisdictions the average out-of-pocket cost of seeing a specialist has now soared to well above $90. That's far, far too high. I can tell you that from doorknocking in the seat of Robertson, where we have a fantastic candidate, Anne Charlton. We were out doorknocking in Wamberal, right near Terrigal, and we were meeting great Australians who've served this country in many ways across the years. I remember an encounter that Anne and I had with a woman who said she'd been able to manage her health care very well for all of her life but was at a point, for the first time in her life, where she was simply unable, despite owning her own home and having had financial stability all of her life, to access health services. That was on the watch of this government and its action around Medicare. So every time those opposite say, 'Nothing to see here; we support Medicare,' remember the facts: an attempt at a $7 co-payment and a freeze that's still in place.
Ninety dollars in out-of-pocket costs to see a specialist is far too high. Meanwhile, the government is out there trying to trumpet a static GP bulk-billing rate as some kind of great achievement. How out of touch can you get? The Australian people are far too smart to fall for the kind of spin that this government is trying on them. They know that the cost of going to the doctor has risen. People feel it in their pocket every time they have to go to the doctor. What about families with children? I've got three. It was always: one would get an ear infection, the second would get one and then the third one, and it would all be one day after the other. For families, multiple visits to doctors in the course of one week are common. The cost of that—the out-of-pocket cost—has expanded under the watch of this government.
The Australian people will not fall for any of the nonsense that's promulgated by this government about their love for Medicare. Sadly, the consequences of five years of Liberal-National Party government under Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull, both of them, are that Australians now are delaying going to their doctor. They are delaying going to their doctor simply because they can't afford it. The freeze has had a terrible impact on the health and wellbeing of this nation. Official Bureau of Statistics figures show that one million Australians delay or avoid seeing their GP each year due to cost, with another 1.7 million Australians skipping specialist appointments. About the same number don't fill a prescription because of cost. Older Australians fare the worst, with one in eight telling a Commonwealth fund that they've got problems getting health care because of cost. Only patients in the US, obviously no role model when it comes to universal care, fare worse than older Australians.
There have always been challenges to Medicare's universality, such as difficulty in accessing services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, as well as the challenges—very big challenges—for people in regional, rural and remote Australia, but in recent years out-of-pocket costs have become a very significant barrier to access. Medicare statistics show that 10 years ago Australians paid an average out-of-pocket fee of $21 to see a GP. Increased in line with inflation today, that cost would be around $26. The same is true for specialists. Ten years ago Australians paid about $44, equivalent to around $54 now. But the problem is that the costs under the Liberal-National government are much, much higher than that. The Liberals make a laughable claim that Medicare has never been stronger than it is now, on their watch. What a load of rot! Whether it's making Medicare more expensive, cutting public hospitals or putting health insurance profits before patients, the conservatives can never be trusted on health.
At the last round of Senate estimates, officials said the government's latest budget was trying to bend the curve of Medicare—bend the curve of Medicare, right? That means basically they're trying to cut. That was what we found out at Senate estimates in this building just a few weeks ago. The government wants to bend Medicare, all right; they want to bend it till it breaks.
In stark contrast, the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech in May announced the first round of Labor's new investments in Medicare, and it's a significant investment in MRI machines, which are so vital for the diagnosis of complex medical illnesses. Unlike other services, MRI scans only get the Medicare rebate if they're performed on an eligible machine. The licence system is anachronistic. It worked pretty well until 2013, given that the last Labor government granted 238 licences. Unfortunately, the current government has totally neglected MRIs, granting only four licences. There were 238 MRI licences from Labor and four licences in the five years that they've been in government. This is a woeful record and it goes again to the facts about this government, their attitude to Medicare and their cavalier attitude to the health and wellbeing of Australians. Access to Medicare MRIs is very patchy, and many Australians travelling long distances experience significant wait times to access an eligible machine. It's too long to have to wait.
This government's assurances about health are worthless. While there's $190 million in savings from the MBS review in the 2018 budget, there's just $25 million in new MBS listings, which means another net cut to Medicare. They are taking money out of the health budget hand over fist. They cut Medicare. They cut hospitals. They do everything they can to prop up the private insurers. Labor will have much more to say about this government's treatment of Australians' health in times to come.
It is sad to say that I am old enough to remember life before Medicare and life after Medicare. I might talk a little bit about that later on. I'm a passionate advocate of Medicare, having experienced both systems. Labor will support the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018. As Senator O'Neill outlined, we're more than willing to support bills which look to improve and streamline how Medicare functions and, indeed, to ensure that money expended is returned to Medicare, although we haven't got that commitment. We know that the savings at this point are not going back directly to Medicare, which is really where they should go, because the savings are being derived from new measures.
The Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018 will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Dental Benefits Act 2008 and the National Health Act 1953 to implement parts of a 2017 budget measure on Medicare compliance. I was a bit surprised and shocked to read that, currently, we are recovering only about 40 per cent of the Medicare debts, which means that there's about $50 million of outstanding debt. If this measure sharpens up that statistic, it will be a very good measure. Hopefully, this bill will improve the recovery arrangements.
It will also clarify the Professional Services Review—the PSR, as it's commonly known—which investigates Medicare and PBS compliance concerns. It will have jurisdiction over corporate medical practices that contract health providers as well as over practices that employ providers and over providers themselves. I think that's particularly important in an ever-changing medical model where we are seeing big corporate practices across the country. It is really important that we have legislation in place which is wide enough and has enough scope that we can make sure that, however our health system adapts in the future, we'll have a good model there when providers are not doing the right thing. It is absolutely critical, given that health is a significant part of our budget spend, to make sure that we are in a position to be able to recover moneys that are owed to the Commonwealth.
I think it's important, too, that the bill will introduce compulsory offsetting and garnishee provisions for providers who do not voluntarily agree to repayment plans in 90 days. It's very easy, I think, for people to avoid, to put off and to make promises that they'll get to repaying a debt in a certain time frame yet fail to do that, so the chasing of that debt continues. This move is to make sure that we have an enforceable repayment plan in 90 days. I hope we don't have to use that. I hope that most in the health sector in Australia will come to the table and pay the debts that may be owed, but, at the hopefully rare times that that doesn't occur, we've now got a real tool there to ensure that those moneys are recovered. That, too, is a good thing.
Again, the bill is looking at record-keeping requirements that are consistent, because it is very hard in a compliance regime to go after outstanding moneys if they're able to be hidden or highlighted in a particular way that doesn't quite make sense. Consistent record keeping will give a much sharper focus to that ability to quickly see what's going on and to get into a recovery payment plan with health professionals if it's needed. We're roping in additional allied health professionals, who will be required to keep referrals for two years.
Australia does have a universal health system, and whatever we can do to protect that universal health system is obviously going to be supported by Labor. We introduced Medicare, and despite the opposition of the Liberals particularly, who fought it off twice, it has survived. I'm not sure that the government really does believe that it should be a universal scheme, but for us, for Labor, it's an essential part of who we are to provide that universal health scheme.
It was Mr Fraser who messed around with Medicare. At the time that he did that, I was a much younger person and just starting out having a family. My first child, my daughter, was born outside of the Medicare system. We'd had it for a short time, and then it was cancelled. At the time I was not in paid employment. My partner at the time was a very low-income earner but just a few dollars above what would have given us access to a health card. So, when I had my daughter, all of the associated medical costs—like most young kids, she had all sorts of illnesses and conditions and so on, so we had to see a number of specialists—had to be paid for out of our own pockets. As I say, we were low-income earners—I think we were $2 or $3 above the cut-off for getting a concession card. Quite frankly, if it hadn't been for my grandmother and my mother-in-law, who from time to time gave us the cash to pay those bills, we would not have survived. I don't know what we would have done. Certainly, when my children were sick, the first place that I went to was the accident and emergency at the fabulous Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Public Hospital, because, quite frankly, I couldn't afford other services. There weren't that many after-hours GPs available when my daughter was young, but I certainly couldn't afford the fees that they charged. So on weekends and late at night, when children tend to get sick, you would find me, more often than not, sitting in A&E waiting to get health care for my children, because that was the only option available to me. Now, I knew that I was churning up the valuable time of those in the accident and emergency department but, quite frankly, I didn't have any other options. I didn't have hundreds of dollars to pay out to GPs and specialists. My only option—and I'm sure the only option of many other people—was to sit in emergency.
A couple of years later my son was born. We had Medicare again. It was back, obviously because there was a Labor government in power. And what a difference it made to have that weight of bearing the health costs of my children lifted off my shoulders by Medicare. That was something I still remember, and my children are well and truly adults now. But I remember that burden—the difference between my daughter's birth and her early years and my son's birth and his early years. All of us in this place who are parents or grandparents know that when children are young they often get sick—they get viruses—and you're worried about their development, so there are lots of visits to health professionals. So my own personal experience has well and truly made me a passionate advocate of Medicare.
As I said, we can't trust Liberal governments with our health system. Certainly Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull have demonstrated that by the actions they've taken in reducing funding to various parts of Medicare, the attack on women's health care in particular, and just their general view that it shouldn't be a universal healthcare system. I can't quite remember when it was, whether Mr Abbott or Mr Turnbull was the Prime Minister of the day, but do you remember that we had that very serious proposition whereby the government was looking at how we had a view—not a scientific view, but a view—that GPs were being overused, that we were just being pests and going off to GP clinics way too many times? They didn't have any real scientific evidence of that, and perhaps the rise in chronic disease in Australia is the reason people make more visits—if indeed they do—to GPs.
For quite some time there was serious contemplation of restricting GP visits. If you went over a certain number of GP visits, you'd be paying much more. What an outrageous position: for a government to stand in the middle of the relationship between a GP and a patient. But that's exactly what the government was seeking to do. It was saying, 'We're going to fund X number of GP visits for you each year, and if you exceed that limit we're going to charge you for it.' Now, obviously they met a lot of resistance. We were very strong on that and really fought against it. The AMA saw it as an attack on their professionalism. Eventually that proposition was dropped. Maybe privately it's still being entertained, but it's not something the government is publicly talking about any longer. But that proposition was floated not that long ago—that you would have a certain amount of GP visits and then your quota was up. Imagine having a quota system for visits to a doctor. Imagine that. Imagine if you were the young mother that I was, with two children getting sick, and you overtook your limit. Where would you go? You'd go back to A&E, because you wouldn't have had the money to pay for additional visits.
The other thing we've seen the Prime Minister do—and this is really very poor—is use Medicare as a bargaining chip. We saw recently, in relation to One Nation's support for the corporate tax cuts—and we don't really know where they are on that at the moment, because it's created a split in their party; they've gone from three senators to two, at today's count—that One Nation had managed to negotiate getting an MRI licence in Kalgoorlie. For those of you who are not Western Australians, Kalgoorlie is a regional town towards the east. Regional towns in Western Australia are not massive, but by Western Australian standards Kalgoorlie is a major regional town, and of course it has all the Centrecare and other sorts of offices that you would normally expect in a large regional town. It is 600 kilometres away from Perth CBD, yet it didn't have an MRI. So what do we see? We see Mr Turnbull willing to do a deal with One Nation to provide an MRI licence in Kalgoorlie if they signed on the bottom line for the corporate tax cuts. Isn't it a disgrace that we have a government that is willing to trade away the provision of a fundamental health service? Labor has made that commitment with no strings attached. We didn't do any dirty deals with any crossbenchers. We have said, as a party who's committed to Medicare, that we will make available that MRI licence.
We've seen during the life of the Turnbull government that only four MRI licences have been granted in the last five years. By contrast, under the Labor government, there were 238 licences granted, and they're an important tool in today's diagnosis. If you go to your GP with, say, a hip problem or something like that, you get referred to a specialist. Even today, specialists will insist upon an MRI scan, because it has become a tool. Of course, it gives the specialist a much clearer picture of what's actually going on. So they're not just the fancy, if you like, of surgeons who want all the bells and whistles; they've become a fundamental tool of good health practice. Yet we've seen the Turnbull government, in its negotiation with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, well and truly ready to trade on that. What a disgrace!
These compliance measures are really important across the nation because we see, unfortunately, that in Australia there's an increase in chronic diseases, some of which are preventable if we were able to get to people when they're children or young adolescents to talk about good health, good eating, good exercise and so on. Some of these chronic diseases are absolutely preventable, so that's also where we should be focusing energy. With greater chronic diseases and an ageing population, it is more important than ever that we make sure that our health system is streamlined, that we are recovering debt and that we're making it easy for practitioners and providers to comply with regulation, because, at the end of the day, doctors are there to provide a health service and, if we can make the reporting procedures more streamlined, that in turn that will deliver better health.
I want to make sure that we get this bill done and that we can start, particularly, to recover the moneys that are there. But we'll watch it very closely because, as we say, we don't believe that the Turnbull government can be trusted with our health system. We don't believe that the Turnbull government really believes in a universal health system, which is part of Labor's DNA. It is absolutely a fundamental core value of ours. Senator O'Neill spoke about an American type of system. Certainly when I visited the US before I became a senator, I saw low-income earners having to fund their own breast cancer treatment or go on waiting lists for benevolent services that would accommodate them and look after them—shocking. I was truly shocked to see and talk to women who worked in jobs where there wasn't a healthcare system and had to fund breast cancer treatment. Believe me, there's no way that we would want that sort of system as any part of the Australian health system. Our universal health system's something we need to be proud of.
Debate interrupted.
I advise the Senate that Senator Canavan will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. In Senator Canavan's absence, Senator Scullion will represent the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister inform the Senate how much someone on a salary of over $200,000, like Senator Hanson, who's not in the chamber, can expect to gain once all three stages of the Turnbull government's income tax scheme have been implemented? How does this compare—
Government senators interjecting—
Order! I'm going to insist on a degree of silence during the question so that I may hear it. On my right, please allow the conclusion of the question.
Can the minister inform the Senate how much someone on a salary of over $200,000, like Senator Hanson, can expect to gain once all three stages of the Turnbull government's income tax scheme have been implemented?
Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—
Order, Senator Fierravanti-Wells! I just asked for order during the question.
How does this compare to what a worker earning under $90,000 will gain?
As I've advised the chamber for some time, somebody earning $30,000 a year will get a 8.3 per cent tax cut and somebody earning $200,000 a year will get a 0.2 per cent tax cut. Colleagues, do you know what I'm going to say? The Labor Party does not know when the battle is over. The battle is over and the working families of Australia have won.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Yes, there's an election. I take that interjection from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. We can't wait to engage with the Labor Party in the lead-up to the next election all the way to election day next year when the Labor Party is saying to working families around Australia, 'We, the Labor Party, stand for higher taxes,' while we, the Liberal-National Party, stand for lower taxes. You stand for lower growth; we stand for stronger growth. You stand for fewer jobs; we stand for more jobs. You stand for lower wages; we stand for higher wages. Your agenda of higher taxes and your agenda of wanting to increase the tax burden on Australian families by $70 billion will hurt the economy, will hurt families and, of course, will cost jobs. We're quite happy to go to the next election with you promising to increase that—
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
It's all very interesting, but, really, the question was quite clear. It was on the comparison between someone on $200,000 and someone on $90,000.
This is the reason I need silence when questions are asked; it's so that I may hear them. I can't instruct the minister how to answer the question, but I remind all ministers that all material in the answer must be directly relevant to the question.
As I've advised the chamber now on a number of occasions, the value of the tax cut for somebody earning $90,000, which the Senate has just legislated, is 2.9 per cent for every year over the next four years. It is 0.2 per cent every year over the next four years for somebody earning $200,000.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.
Why did the Prime Minister team up with Senator Pauline Hanson to give themselves the tax cut instead of supporting Labor's plan to give every working Australian on less than $125,000 a tax cut of up to $928 a year? That's almost double the tax cuts they will get from your government.
What the government has done is team up with the Australian Senate. Working families across Australia are very grateful to their Senate, and they're very grateful to those crossbench senators who've decided to back them by supporting and providing much-needed income tax relief for them so that they get to keep more of their own money instead of the government taking more money out of their pockets. That is what the Senate has done today, and we are prepared to work with any member of this Senate when it comes to advancing good public policy in the national interest and in the interests of working families across Australia. We are very proud that the Australian Senate today stood up for working families across Australia against the socialist politics of envy and destructive agenda of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten.
I ask a final supplementary question. Senator Hanson says that teaming up with the government to defeat Labor's plan to almost double the government's tax cut for low- and middle-income earners was 'the only fair thing to do'. How is it fair to vote against bigger tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners while voting for a tax cut of $7,000 for yourself?
We are very grateful to Senator Hanson, as we are grateful to Senators Hinch, Burston, Bernardi, Leyonhjelm, Patrick, Griff—all of those crossbench senators who have decided to back working families across Australia who are in much need of income tax relief. It's a plan that is fair. It's fair because our plan for income tax relief prioritises low- and middle-income earners in the first instance but then addresses bracket creep for all working Australians, ensuring they have the right incentive to get ahead. I remind Senator Keneally that somebody earning $30,000 a year pays $2,200 worth of tax, whereas somebody on $200,000 a year pays $67,000 worth of tax. Somebody earning just over three times as much in revenue pays about 30 times as much in tax. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about what the government is doing to create jobs, particularly in the great state of Tasmania?
I thank Senator Duniam for his question, a job related question. As we know, the Turnbull government is a job-creating government. Since the coalition was elected in September 2013, because of the policies that we have put in place, the economy has created in excess now of one million jobs.
Where were your lawyers yesterday?
The serial misleader is on her feet.
Those on the other side don't like that. They don't like the fact that we on this side, the coalition government, know that if you put in place the right economic framework, personal income tax cuts giving Australians the opportunity to keep what is theirs, you will ultimately create jobs. Senator Duniam, you'd be interested to know that back in September 2013, because of the job-destroying policies of the former Labor-Greens government, the Braddon region had an unemployment rate of 9.2 per cent. Under Labor 490 jobs were lost in Braddon. That's right: we saw a loss of jobs. Tasmanian senators on the other side are quiet at the moment. That's a loss of seven jobs every month. Since the coalition was elected in September 2013, Senator Duniam and the Tasmanian team have seen 1,530 jobs created in the Braddon region. That's 28 jobs every month. Brett Whiteley, our candidate in Braddon, wants to be part of that job-creating team. Let's compare the two candidates: Labor, seven jobs lost every month in the Braddon region; 28 jobs created every month under the coalition. It's a clear choice: more jobs if Brett Whiteley joins the Turnbull team, or a loss of jobs under those opposite.
Senator Duniam, do you have a supplementary question?
I sure do. I thank the minister for that answer. How is the Turnbull government working with the very effective Hodgman government in Tasmania to ensure job creation?
It's a fact: the Hodgman government and the Turnbull government are on a job-creating unity ticket. Last month the Prime Minister announced $30 million in funding, combined with $51 million in funding from the Hodgman Liberal government, for a Cradle Mountain cable car and master plan to upgrade and improve the Cradle Mountain precinct. Why did we do that? It's because this project is all about creating jobs and attracting more tourists to the region. It's estimated that approximately 60,000 additional tourists will now come to what is a spectacular region. It is all about job creation. The project is estimated to create an additional 160 jobs in the construction stage and an additional 140 jobs in implementing the Cradle Mountain master plan. Again, Brett Whiteley wants to be part of the Turnbull job-creating team.
Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Finally, why is it important for the people of Braddon to be represented by a local member who actually supports job creation?
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
I'm not sure, but is that something in Minister Cash's portfolio—a decision about Braddon? The question was not: why is job creation important? It was: why is it important for the people of Braddon to elect someone? I am happy to—
Senator Wong, as I understand it, ministers are allowed to be quizzed on public statements they have made and matters that are not just directly their portfolio responsibility. I will encourage colleagues to carefully word questions, and I'll allow the minister to answer that part of the question she considers relevant.
On this side of the chamber, the Turnbull government, with Senator Duniam and other Tasmanians, are happy to debate job creation all day. Let's remind those opposite why. Under them, in the electorate of Braddon, seven jobs were lost every single month. Under the coalition government, 28 jobs have been created every single month. Why? It's because we have put in place the right policy framework. You need a team, a Tasmanian team, fighting in Braddon for personal income tax cuts. Why? It's because we on this side of the chamber want Australians to keep what is rightly theirs. We will continue to support small businesses and we will put in place those policies which will allow businesses to prosper and grow. Under those opposite, the unemployment rate in Braddon was 9.2 per cent. Jobs were lost every month. Under the Turnbull government, we're turning that around and we are creating jobs.
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Yesterday Senator Hanson sided with the Turnbull government to give herself a tax cut of $7,000 a year. Did the minister explain to Senator Hanson that 95 per cent of the benefit of the stage 3 income tax cuts will go exclusively to the top 20 per cent of income earners, while 75 per cent of taxpayers will get no benefit at all?
The Labor Party just can't handle the fact that the Senate has voted in support of working families across Australia getting income tax relief. What Senator Hanson understands and what all of those crossbench senators who supported our proposed income tax relief for hardworking Australians understand is that somebody who earns $200,000 a year—that is, about seven times as much as somebody earning $30,000 a year—pays 30 times as much tax. So it's seven times as much revenue and 30 times as much tax.
Let me make another point. Under our reforms, after they've been fully legislated, the proportion of revenue generated from those Australians who earn so much that they are in our top income tax bracket will continue to increase from about 30 per cent now to 36 per cent by 2024-25. In fact, like how the top 20 per cent of income earners today are responsible for more than 60 per cent of income tax revenue generated in Australia, do you know what the situation will be at the end of 2024-25? You will still have 20 per cent of top income earners being responsible for about 60 per cent of the income tax revenue generated by government.
I know that the Labor Party hates aspiration. It hates it when people are trying to get ahead. It wants everybody to stay poor so they continue to vote Labor. The Labor Party wants to keep everybody equally poor. The Labor Party is for equality of outcome where everybody is equally poor. We are for equality of opportunity, where everybody has the opportunity to get ahead and where everybody will be better off as everybody strives to get as far ahead as they possibly can, because that lifts the whole economy and it lifts opportunity for all Australians.
I ask a supplementary question. Only 700 taxpayers in Longman will see the full benefit of Senator Hanson's decision to support stage 3 of the Turnbull government's income tax scheme, while 10,000 taxpayers in Wentworth will see the full benefit. Did the minister explain to Senator Hanson that she was delivering for the big end of town in Sydney and Melbourne?
Every Liberal and National Party senator and every crossbench senator who supported this very important reform was very aware that the vote that we took today was a vote in support of working families across Australia. All working families across Australia wanting to get ahead are receiving a tax cut as of today because of the decision of the Senate. The Senate has locked in income tax relief for all hardworking Australians who pay tax. That is a great day for them.
The Labor Party can try and run their Longman by-election campaign here through the Senate. Good luck to you. Do you know why we're having a Longman by-election? It is because the Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Shorten, lied to the Australian people, lied to the Australian people about the fact—
Order!
I didn't call him a liar.
Senator Cormann, I thought that crossed the line. Could you withdraw that, please.
I withdraw.
Thank you very much.
You know why we're having a by-election in Longman? It's because the Leader of the Opposition misled the Australian people about the supposedly amazing due diligence processes, the vetting process, of the Labor preselection process. He knew that they were not eligible, and he stood by them anyway.
I would ask that he withdraw the—
I missed the phrase.
'Deliberately misled' is what he said.
Senator Cormann interjecting—
You did so. You should check the Hansard.
I will check the Hansard. I did not catch—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
All right, I will check the Hansard, Senator Collins. There's some difference over the exact words. I didn't catch it. I will check. Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?
Yes, indeed. Can the minister confirm that Senator Hanson voted against Labor's plan to almost double the tax cut for 63,000 taxpayers in Longman?
What I can confirm is that every Liberal and National Party senator and every crossbench senator who supported our plan proudly voted against your plan to increase the tax burden on Australian families by $70 billion. We, the Senate, decided not to support your $70 billion tax hike on Australian working families.
That is, of course, only part of your tax hike that you would impose on the Australian people if you were elected to government. You want to put your hands into the pockets of retirees. You want to put your hands into the pockets of small and family business. You want to put your hands into the pockets of working families. You want to increase the tax burden across Australia by more than $200 billion. If you were in a position where you could do this, it would hurt the economy, it would hurt families and it would cost jobs. Bill Shorten stands for an agenda which would lead to less investment, lower growth, fewer jobs, higher unemployment and lower wages. We stand for stronger growth, more jobs and higher wages.
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Bloomberg New Energy Finance released their global New Energy Outlook 2018 earlier this week, and it said that 'renewables will become the backbone of the system', that 'Australia can once again become a cheap energy superpower' and that industries 'will relocate onshore'. Minister, the economics are now crystal clear. Renewables are bringing down power prices. They're creating jobs. They will attract new industries here. So why is the government chaining the country to the National Energy Guarantee, an energy policy that will hold back renewables; will ensure that prices, rather than going down, go up; and will hold down progress in this country?
I thank Senator Di Natale for that question. Our plan to implement the National Energy Guarantee will deliver lower electricity prices, will deliver increased reliability and stability in our energy system and of course will also help us meet the emissions reduction commitments that we signed on to in Paris. So the government stand by our policy. It's a policy that is entirely technology neutral, as it should be, because that is the best opportunity we have to ensure that we can continue to bring down the price of electricity, that we can continue to improve the reliability and the stability of our electricity system and that we can continue to meet those emissions reduction targets that we've committed to internationally.
Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.
Thank you, Minister. The Bloomberg report also said:
While arguments about the transition to clean energy continue to plague the Turnbull government, in the market, the debate is over …
Minister, can you outline the extent to which Tony Abbott and his so-called 'coalition against social progress' is a threat to the future prosperity of Australian households and businesses seeking to thrive in a society with a clean, modern, 21st century energy system?
Tony Abbott, of course, is a great former coalition Prime Minister who's made a significant contribution to the economic prosperity and the security of Australia. If it weren't for Tony Abbott, we would still have the mining tax. We would still have the carbon tax and the boats. The chaos at our borders that Labor and the Greens imposed on the Australian people would still be happening. So let me assure you that the contribution that former Prime Minister Tony Abbott made to Australia was a fine contribution indeed and Tony Abbott is a valued member of the coalition team. Tony Abbott is a valued member of the Turnbull government team and, of course, what we do in the coalition is talk about policy. We talk about policy. All of us on this side of the chamber are united: we are interested in lower electricity prices. We want to see lower electricity prices, we want to see increased stability and we are committed to ensuring that we can meet our emissions reduction targets in a way that is economically sensible, and that is, of course, precisely what we're doing.
Order! Senator Di Natale, a further supplementary question.
Minister, the latest plan released by the Energy Security Board shows that the National Energy Guarantee will enable big polluting states like New South Wales to free-ride on the emission cuts of other states. Minister, why does the government deride the renewable energy targets of places like South Australia and at the same time intend to put in place a scheme that's going to rely on targets like those in South Australia to deliver the guarantee?
Perhaps Senator Di Natale was hiding under a rock in recent years, or maybe he was somewhere in a party room meeting in a cave. Do you know what happened under the previous Labor government's energy policy? The lights went out! They couldn't keep the lights on. On this side of parliament we do not support a policy that is not able to keep the lights on. We are in favour of lower prices, we're in favour of keeping the lights on and we're in favour of meeting our emissions reduction targets in a way that makes sense economically but also ensures that our businesses and our families can continue to have reliable access to electricity supplies.
Any policy framework that generates a complete, statewide blackout is a massive policy failure. If you want to go to the next election arguing in favour of a policy failure like that, go right ahead. We will argue against you, and the Australian people can decide: Do they want blackouts or do they want reliable energy supplies? Do they want lower electricity prices or higher prices under you?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In an article entitled 'Nats join revolt against energy guarantee', the assistant minister to the Prime Minister, Nationals MP Keith Pitt, has revealed:
… at least seven of the 21 Nationals MPs—and potentially more—had serious concerns with the NEG …
Why is the Prime Minister bothering to seek support for his latest energy policy from states and territories when not even his own assistant minister supports it?
I'm sure that the outstanding member for Hinkler would be pleased to know that Senator Pratt is interested in what he has to say. He does an outstanding job; he stands up for his constituents in Hinkler extremely well, as every Liberal and Nationals senator and member of parliament, of course, does. What I would say to you is that Assistant Minister Pitt is absolutely, 100 per cent committed to the policy objectives of the Turnbull government—that is, lower electricity prices, more reliable energy supplies and meeting our emissions reduction targets in a way that is economically sensible and doesn't lead to statewide blackouts, as happened in the state of South Australia.
I know that the Labor Party is always more interested in the politics than in the policy, but on our side of parliament we are a vibrant coalition—
Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong on a point of order.
It was direct relevance, although perhaps the phrase 'vibrant coalition' will deal with seven of 21 Nationals MPs considering not supporting the NEG, which was the question.
You've reminded the minister of the question. I consider that the minister is being relevant to the question in talking about the member quoted and about energy.
The Liberal and National Party coalition is a strong, united and vibrant team, and we do engage in policy debate, because we are also committed to advancing the public interest, and long may that be the case, because it helps ensure that we make the best possible decisions for working families across Australia and for our economic security into the future.
Senator Pratt, a supplementary question.
Former Prime Minister Abbott yesterday refused to rule out crossing the floor if asked to vote for the National Energy Guarantee, saying, 'I hope it doesn't come to questions of crossing the floor.' How many of the Turnbull government's own members intend to cross the floor in the latest battle in its ongoing climate war?
I'm sure Senator Pratt will be relieved to know that the coalition is a strong and united team and that we do engage in policy discussion. When legislation eventually comes forward it'll go through the normal processes and all will be revealed at that time, and I'm sure Senator Pratt will be watching very closely.
Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question.
Former Prime Minister Abbott went on to say:
It's a fundamental failure of process, stifling the proper debate that we should be able to have inside our party room.
Is Prime Minister Turnbull so scared of his own party room that he won't even allow a proper process and debate?
I'm sure, again, that Senator Pratt will be very relieved to hear that we have great debates inside the coalition party room. Indeed, we had a great debate on the energy guarantee proposal when it first came forward. And you wouldn't be surprised to hear me say that from time to time the issue of the National Energy Guarantee comes up in conversation. So the conversation inside the coalition party room will continue, and I'm sure that you will watch very carefully when the legislation eventually comes forward. I look forward to Senator Pratt and the Labor Party supporting a policy that will lead to lower electricity prices and improved reliability rather than your discredited agenda, which would lead to higher electricity prices and less-reliable energy supplies.
My question is to Senator Scullion, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basinmilestone assessment report for 2016-17, due to be published in October 2017, remains unpublished. With regard to New South Wales, will the minister detail the issues that have been in question?
I thank the senator for the question. I understand that a decision is yet to be made on the 2017-18 milestone payment with New South Wales. In all cases, that type of decision is actually informed by the performance of, in this case, New South Wales in its 2016-17 system under the national partnership agreement. Full assessments of all basin jurisdictions, including New South Wales, are going to be published on the department's website once a decision has been made on all assessments by that minister.
Senator Burston.
Will the minister detail whether New South Wales was subject to a threat of nonpayment or actual nonpayment over New South Wales's performance on the protection of Commonwealth held water assets under this assessment?
As I indicated in my previous answer, the minister has yet to make a decision on the 2017-18 milestone payments and, as I indicated, that's because they have to actually do a triage of the 2016-17 performance in New South Wales. Payments made under the national partnership agreement for all basin jurisdictions are subject to an assessment of performance under the agreement milestones, and it's exactly the same with all the partnerships across the basin.
Senator Burston, a final supplementary question.
Will the minister confirm that protecting these multibillion-dollar water assets is not enhancing its asset rights and characteristics at the expense of privately held assets?
The Commonwealth water assets are held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which falls under the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and Energy. However, I understand that, under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray Darling Basin, all basin jurisdictions agreed that:
… the characteristics of licence entitlements held for environmental water use were not enhanced or diminished relative to like entitlements held and used for other purposes.
There were a couple of other elements of the questions from the senator that I wasn't able to answer. I would be happy to arrange a further briefing on those details of this important issue.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister update the Senate on the progress under the Turnbull government's family day care enforcement action?
I thank Senator Hume for her question and her passionate advocacy for working Australian families to ensure that they get the best possible deal in terms of support for childcare services. An important part of maintaining and managing an effective childcare system is to ensure that you look after taxpayer dollars and ensure that funds go to those families in need and also to those services who are doing the right thing. The Turnbull government takes compliance around childcare matters extraordinarily seriously. That's why we announced a six-month blitz. I'm delighted to update the Senate that that six-month blitz has paid dividends. The Turnbull government has taken compliance action and enforcement action against 151 services across Australia in the family day care sector. We're ensuring, as a result, that this will stop about $1 billion in subsidies going out the door.
This is part of what has been a zero-tolerance approach by this government. We've ensured that regulation is more effective and enforcement is more frequent. In fact, on enforcement, over the last year we have carried out around 4,500 compliance checks across the country. That is compared with the year before we came to office, which had just 500 compliance checks being undertaken. As a result, over our period of time in office, we estimate we have stopped the loss of more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars that would otherwise have been rorted by individuals doing the wrong thing in the family day care sector.
Twenty-eight individuals have been charged and a number have been convicted. We continue to make sure this enforcement action isn't just about getting people out of the system; we are also making an example, where possible, to ensure that others don't follow suit. It does stand in stark contrast to the previous Labor government. Mr President, do you know how many services were suspended or cancelled under the previous Labor government? Zero. No wonder we had such a clean-up job to do, but I'm pleased that that clean-up job is going effectively and we are better looking after taxpayer dollars.
Senator Hume, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for his answer. That is encouraging news indeed. Can the minister explain how this enforcement action is cleaning up the system so that we can guarantee the essential services that Australians deserve, like the new childcare package that the coalition is introducing from 2 July?
You can guarantee essential services, like better childcare subsidies, in the future by having a stronger economy—as the coalition does and as the Turnbull government has done—and by ensuring that you're careful with every taxpayer dollar. That is the approach of the Liberal and National parties. Our approach is to respect every taxpayer dollar and to ensure that we have a stronger economy. That is allowing us to deliver reforms that are going to help around one million Australian families to be better off. Because we've managed to improve the budget position through a stronger economy, we are able to invest an extra $2.5 billion in the new childcare system to help working families. We're able to ensure that 85 per cent of families will no longer have to worry about hitting a cap in relation to the childcare rebate. That is because the cap has been abolished for those families, ensuring that they can choose to work the hours and days that best suit them. We expect that we will see 230,000 choose to increase their workforce participation. (Time expired)
Senator Hume, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister explain what families need to do in order to benefit from the Turnbull government's new childcare package?
Already more than 900,000 Australian families have gone online and updated their details. The overwhelming feedback is that this has been a simple and straightforward process. We are pleased that so many families have made the step and with the progress to date. We encourage anybody else eligible to make sure that, before 2 July, they go online, visit their myGov account and provide the additional information to make sure they get every cent they are entitled to. It is well worth the 10 minutes online. Our analysis to date shows many families will be $1,300 a year per child better off because of the Turnbull government's additional childcare relief. We know that good governments help those working families. That's what we're doing with our childcare relief. That's what we're doing with our tax relief. That's what we can do, because we're delivering a stronger economy. That's what we can do, because we manage every taxpayer's dollars carefully. That's what we can do, because of jobs growth. That, of course, is why we can give better support to more families. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. As the minister will remember, Treasury secretary John Fraser acknowledged in budget estimates that Treasury's estimates for the performance of the economy are subject to heightened uncertainty and to large error bands three or more years ahead. How, then, is it economically responsible to now lock in more than $120 billion worth of tax cuts, in stages 2 and 3 of your package, when they come into effect four and six years from now?
Not only is it responsible but it is necessary, because it is part of a plan for stronger growth and more jobs. This is part of a long-term plan for stronger growth, more jobs and better opportunities for working families around Australia to get ahead. What the Treasury secretary, Mr Fraser, indicated during Senate estimates was that the government's economic forecasts reflected in the 2018-19 budget are prudent, cautious and in line with those economic forecasts of independent institutions like the Reserve Bank of Australia—in fact, in some areas, they're somewhat more prudent than those of the Reserve Bank or, indeed, the International Monetary Fund.
What Mr Fraser did indicate—and it's, of course, all spelled out in the budget papers—is that there is always risk. If we walk out of this building and cross the road, there's risk. We manage that risk by looking right and left to make sure we don't get hit by a car. What the government is doing is managing the risk. There are some things that are outside of our immediate control but what happens in the global economy or with world prices for our key commodity exports or in certain geopolitical matters is not something that is in our direct control. Because of that, and because we are an open trading economy, and because we compete with other countries around the world, we need to ensure that at all times we are in the best possible position to be competitive internationally and that we provide the right incentives, the right encouragement and the right reward for effort to Australian families to get ahead. That is how we generate stronger growth.
If individual Australians have the best possible incentive to get ahead, that leads to stronger growth across the economy in aggregate. As we have stronger growth across the economy in aggregate, because we are addressing bracket creep, what happens is that low-income earners in particular have better opportunities to get into the jobs market, have better opportunities to work more hours and get more pay and have better opportunities to get ahead. That is the whole point of our plan for jobs and growth. We want to ensure that our agenda— (Time expired)
Senator Storer, a supplementary question.
If the economy undershoots Treasury's optimistic projections, the government has three options: delay the introduction of stages 2 and 3 of the package; reduce spending on services like health and education, which South Australians expect; or slow down overall debt repayment, which already costs $18 billion a year in interest. Don't Australians deserve to know the fate of stages 2 and 3 now if economic circumstances don't turn out the way that the government hopes?
Indeed, Australian working families do deserve to know the fate of stages 2 and 3. The fate of stages 2 and 3 of our long-term plan for income tax relief is that they were legislated in full by the Senate today. The Senate passed a judgement that it was in the best interests of working families across Australia to pass our long-term plan for income tax relief in full. It is, of course, a central part of our plan to provide cost-of-living-pressure relief to low- and middle-income earners but also to address bracket creep, because addressing bracket creep, which is a drag on growth—
Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
The point of order is on direct relevance. The question went to what is the government's plan in circumstances where the growth assumptions in the budget are not met. That is the question, and there were three options provided.
There was a preface to the question in the question. I'm listening carefully, and I do consider the minister to be relevant. I'll continue to listen carefully.
To assist Senator Wong, let me say directly that I don't accept the premise of the question, which is that the assumptions are overly optimistic. They're not. The Treasury secretary has clearly confirmed that they're prudent economic forecasts that are in line with other relevant independent institutions like the RBA and the IMF. Of course, everybody knows that the Labor Party will go to the next election with a promise for higher taxes. We'll go to the election entrenching lower taxes. (Time expired)
Senator Storer, a final supplementary question.
Minister, are you suggesting that stages 2 and 3 are now locked in whatever the state of the economy four and six years from now?
The long-term plan for income tax relief for all working families across Australia has been legislated by the Senate today, and this is part of our plan to deliver a stronger economy into the future. This is a central part of our economic mission, which is to deliver stronger growth, more jobs and higher wages. If we want to have stronger growth, more jobs and higher wages, one important part of that is to ensure that hardworking Australians can keep more of their own money. If you take more and more money out of the pockets of Australians just because of inflation—
Order! Senator Cameron on a point of order?
The point of order is on relevance. I think Senator Storer asked, 'Were the tax cuts locked in regardless of the state of the economy?' He hasn't answered that. It's regardless of the state of the economy.
Senator Cameron, as you know, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. He is being directly relevant to the question, however. Senator Cormann.
The economy will be stronger as a result of these tax cuts that the Senate has legislated today. The economy would be weaker if Labor got to impose more than $200 billion in higher taxes on families, businesses and retirees.
I ask the Minister for Jobs and Innovation: can the minister confirm that there was no consultation with Australia's premier public research organisations, the CSIRO and the Australian Institute for Marine Science, with regard to the handing over of $443 million for Great Barrier Reef research to a small private organisation?
Thank you for the question, Senator Carr. This question is actually more appropriately given to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment.
No; point of order. This is a question directed to the minister responsible for those research agencies: Senator Cash. CSIRO.
Senator Wong, I was about to rule, but I'll take your contribution.
Perhaps the minister might not be aware there is an organisation called the CSIRO!
Senator Cormann interjecting—
We are asking about consultation with the CSIRO. I wouldn't be calling anybody juvenile today, Senator Cormann.
Let us stick to the points of order. I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question. I can only require them to be directly relevant. Senator Cash, I will invite you to make any other contribution you wish. That can include taking it on notice or providing more information. Senator Carr?
Then I ask: if the minister can't even answer what's in her own portfolio—
Senator Carr, please. You'll have a supplementary opportunity. I've taken your point of order. I've invited the minister to make any further contribution. I cannot instruct her how to answer a question. Or she can take it on notice if she wishes.
Yes, I understand that. I was actually not clear whether the minister was just looking at the brief and waiting and then going to rise or whether she was declining to answer the primary.
I invited the minister to make a further contribution. Minister, do you have a further contribution to add?
Yes. In relation to the primary question: I will take that on notice and respond to you, Senator Carr. But, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, this is an economic asset for Australia, as we know, Senator Carr. It contributes $6.4 billion to the Australian economy. In relation to jobs, 64,000 Australians are actually reliant upon the Great Barrier Reef for their jobs. A key part of the investment that we are making is an innovative partnership with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, and it is $443.3 million. It is a grant that is delivered through the government's Reef Trust. The foundation will deliver funds, Senator Carr—
Order, Senator Cash. Senator Carr on a point of order?
The point of order is one of relevance. I wasn't asking the minister about the value of the Great Barrier Reef; I was asking about the consultation with regard to two portfolio agencies under her direct ministerial control.
On your point of order: the minister has taken part of it on notice. The minister is addressing the part of your question which referred to a grant by the government. I consider the minister to be directly relevant to that part of your question.
As I was saying, the foundation will deliver funds to range of partners experienced in delivering reef protection activities, as well as driving new capacity and partnerships for the reef. We have a productive relationship with the foundation. They have demonstrated their ability to deliver benefits for the reef and manage government funding appropriately through previous reef projects.
Senator Carr, a supplementary question.
Minister, this matter was canvassed at Senate estimates. Part of the rationale that was explained was that there was a private organisation that was able to leverage business connections to raise more funds for reef research. Can you now tell the Senate how much private funding this private federation has raised to date? What percentage of the $443 million does that represent?
You would know that is now a matter that goes directly to the grant, which is actually administered by another portfolio. I understand that you don't like this foundation. You do not like the fact that the government is in partnership with the foundation, but at the end of the day a robust grant agreement setting out the terms of the partnership arrangement is being negotiated by the foundation. The grant agreement will be made consistent with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines and the requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. You may not like it, but that is a fact. In relation to the actual grant, it is administered by another portfolio.
Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.
Given that this matter was canvassed at Senate estimates where you were present, are you able to confirm that the government did not take into confidence the management of the CSIRO in awarding this grant? Does this not reflect a government change in policy towards the privatisation and outsourcing of public interest research?
Absolutely not: I reject the premise of your question. As I have stated, this is a record investment. I would have thought that those on the other side of the chamber would be supportive of a record investment in relation to one of Australia's greatest economic assets—$6.4 billion and 64,000 jobs are reliant upon the Great Barrier Reef. Those on this side of the chamber are very proud of our record investment in the Great Barrier Reef. This foundation has already proven itself. They have demonstrated their ability to deliver benefits for the reef and manage government funding appropriately through previous reef projects. They have a track record in relation to the Great Barrier Reef.
My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Could the minister update the Senate on what the government is doing to assist people on welfare to find a job, particularly those suffering from alcohol and substance addictions?
I thank Senator Brockman for his question. Senators on this side know that the best form of welfare is a job, and that alcohol and substance addictions can, unfortunately, stand in the way. The Turnbull government is ensuring that the welfare system provides strong incentives for people with substance abuse issues to get treatment, rehabilitate and find a job. Since 1 January 2018 all jobseekers are now able to undertake drug or alcohol treatment as an approved activity in their job plan.
Our tax relief passed just this afternoon will benefit those who enter the workforce. The government believes that all Australian taxpayers deserve tax relief. There are more jobs in our economy today than there were before. Since we have come to government over one million jobs have been generated. We are not going to buy into the class envy and the anti-aspirational, anti-job policies of those opposite. The one thing we know, after six years of fiscal vandalism by those opposite, is that they will tax their way—because they spend so much more. Our tax cuts are designed to benefit all taxpayers, especially those who move off welfare and into a job. Our tax package makes sure that someone on the average or less than average wage will not be hit by bracket creep in the future.
Further supporting those moving from welfare to work, the government has also introduced a bill to establish a drug testing trial. The trial will randomly drug test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance over the next two years in Canterbury and Bankstown in New South Wales, Logan in Queensland and Mandurah in Western Australia. This measure is not about punishing people or stripping away payments; it's about assisting people to pursue treatment— (Time expired)
Mr Brockman, a supplementary question.
Could the minister outline how alcohol or substance addiction impacts on employment prospects?
(—) (): We have seen rates of substance addiction that have been very high for unemployed Australians. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Drug Strategy Household Survey, methamphetamine use was 3.1 times higher amongst unemployed people than employed people. These are serious matters and Australians can rest assured that this government recognises the issue and is committed to helping Australians live a better life. Supporting job seekers to overcome their substance abuse will improve their chances of finding a job. This government, as I said, believes that the best form of welfare is a job and the work that we are doing in this space is building on the work of the Turnbull government on the cashless debit card, which was commenced in the Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields regions— (Time expired)
Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question.
Could the minister provide any information on exemptions for people in vulnerable circumstances?
From 1 July 2018, income support recipients will no longer be able to be granted an exemption from their mutual obligations or participation requirements if the reason they are unable to meet their obligations is predominantly due to drug or alcohol dependency. Job seekers will still be eligible for exemptions for reasons not related to substance abuse such as domestic violence, homelessness, temporary care responsibilities and declared natural disasters. This measure was passed as part of our welfare reform act. This government is ensuring that the welfare system is providing strong incentives for people with substance abuse issues to get treatment, to get rehabilitated and to help them find a job. We want all Australians to find gainful employment.
My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister who, on 30 May, said, in relation to the Australian Federal Police investigation into leaks about an AFP raid, 'It is not an investigation into me. It's not an investigation into my office'. Given that the minister was forced to admit that she had misled the Senate on five occasions, after her then media adviser confessed to having leaked information about an AFP raid—
Order, Senator Cameron. I have Senator Cormann on his feet on a point of order.
Senator Cameron is misleading the chamber. Senator Cash at no point misled the Senate. What Senator Cash did was provide the information that was available to her at that time and she corrected the record at the earliest opportunity.
Senator Cormann that is not a point of order; that is a matter for the minister to address in an answer. I call Senator Cameron to continue his question.
Given that the minister was forced to admit that she had misled the Senate on five occasions after her then media adviser confessed to having leaked information about an AFP raid, how can she say it's not an investigation into her or her office?
Senator Cameron, yet again all because you say something does not make it true. I have been consistent in my evidence. You will be aware that I gave answers based on the knowledge I had at the time, and when that knowledge changed I corrected the record. In relation to the actual issue, what those on the other side forget is this: the matter came about because the AWU are refusing to provide evidence—
Senator Wong on a point of order.
The point of order is direct relevance. I know this minister just wants to throw mud in an attempt to get out of it. But the direct relevance is this: it was a question about a prior statement and a question as to the accuracy of the prior statement. How can she say it is not an investigation into her or her office? That was the only question.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Thank you, Senator Macdonald; I'm always so grateful for your advice! The point of order is direct relevance. There is one question.
Senator Wong, you have reminded the minister of the question, so I do not need to. The minister's been reminded of the question and I call upon her to continue her answer.
As I said, in relation to what this matter is actually about, it came about because the AWU are refusing to provide evidence that the donations made when Mr Shorten was national secretary were properly authorised. Those on the other side can throw as much mud as they like.
I'll call Senator Cameron for a supplementary question.
Why is it appropriate for the minister to make that statement but not say whether or not she had been interviewed by the AFP as part of its investigation? On whose advice did the minister decide it was appropriate to allege that the AFP's investigation is not into her or her office?
Senator Cameron, you and I have done this dance on several occasions. The AFP itself has stated that it is not an investigation; it is an investigation into where information came from. At the heart of this matter, though, for those on the other side, this is all about the AWU refusing to provide documents.
Senator Wong.
I'm not sure whether the minister's finished or whether she doesn't want to respond to the question asked.
Senator Cash has concluded her answer. Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
Has the minister been interviewed by the AFP as part of its investigation into the leaks about an Australian Federal Police raid?
Again, I've answered this at estimates several times. Senator Cameron, you will be aware that the AFP Commissioner has claimed public interest immunity in relation to this, and it was accepted by the committee.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Again, you can throw as much mud as you like, Senator Cameron, but the heart of this is all about the AWU refusing to provide documents that showed that donations made by Mr Shorten were properly authorised.
Senator Wong on a point of order.
Yes, direct relevance—no preamble, one question: has the minister been interviewed by the AFP?
Senator Cash has concluded her answer.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Cameron! I will again insist: I've called numerous senators around the chamber to order while questions have been asked so I may hear them.
My question is to Minister for Rural Health, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister outline the Turnbull government's commitment to ensuring access to essential health services for all Australians regardless of where they live?
I thank Senator Williams for his question. The coalition's budget saw record investment in essential health services in hospitals, in medical research, in medicines and in Medicare, all underpinned by a stronger economy. It's this government's plan for a stronger economy that guarantees the essential services Australians rely on. However, access to medical care will not be equitable if regional Australians cannot access qualified doctors and health professionals. Today our cities have approximately 4½ doctors for every 1,000 people, while our most rural areas have just over two doctors per thousand.
On budget night we unveiled the Stronger Rural Health Strategy, the most comprehensive workforce reform package ever produced in Australia. It resets 29 years of incremental regulatory build-up at every stage of the medical workforce supply, including teaching, training and retention. Let's talk about teaching. We're actually establishing the Murray-Darling medical schools network, creating end-to-end medical school programs that take school leavers straight to rural medical schools. We're cutting red tape for our bonded students, making it easier for them to do their return-of-service obligations in the region. In terms of training, we're making it easier for junior doctors to stay in the regions after graduation, with new access to Medicare provider numbers when working in supervised general practice in the regions. We're providing incentives for more of these doctors to gain full specialist GP qualifications. We're also continuing to support funding to retain GPs and better targeting of the rural bulk-billing incentives. Our Stronger Rural Health Strategy will deliver 3,000 specialist GPs to the regions over the next 10 years, providing Australians with long-term, sustainable access to essential health services, regardless of where they live.
Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that good news. What will this mean for the number of nurses and allied health professionals in the regions?
Our Stronger Rural Health Strategy will deliver around 3,000 local doctors to the regions, but it's not just about local doctors. I know Senator Williams has been a strong advocate for nurses in his state. This strategy acknowledges the crucial role that nurses play in delivering quality health outcomes. We'll support nurses to move into primary healthcare settings and improve educational opportunities for nurses about primary health care too.
Meanwhile, our consolidated Workforce Incentive Program will provide clear financial incentives for general practices out in the regions to employ more nurses in multidisciplinary environments, as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health professionals and other allied health professionals. In addition to delivering more local doctors, the strategy will deliver more than 3,000 additional nurses practising in rural areas and hundreds more allied health professionals out in the regions.
Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.
It's good to hear that one side of this chamber cares about regional Australia. How will this improve the health outcomes for patients in regional areas?
Addressing the inequities in access to high-quality medical care has been a longstanding challenge in Australia. Previous governments have introduced many programs over the years, but the problem isn't solved. There are still rural areas where Australian families cannot access a doctor when they need it. This is a very carefully calibrated suite of initiatives that will change in a sustainable, efficient and equitable way the provision of health care for those living in the regions. It will support country students to become country doctors through end-to-end training, without having to end up in a capital city. That is what the research says will make a difference. It will support health professionals in having fulfilling and prosperous careers in regional Australia, and, most importantly, it will ensure the people of regional Australia will be able to access highly-qualified, domestically-trained doctors and health professionals when and where they need it.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to ask a question of you, Mr President, of which I've given you some notice.
Yes.
There has been some media reporting online of an alleged incident involving a young apprentice visiting Parliament House who was allegedly asked by a security guard to take off her shirt because it had a union logo on it. I appreciate you'll need to make inquiries. I ask: is this policy of not allowing someone wearing a union logo T-shirt into the parliament approved by the Department of Parliamentary Services? Is it a policy endorsed by or known to the Presiding Officers?
I appreciate the notice you gave me of this just after the commencement of question time. Having been in the chamber, I haven't been able to chase it up. What I can say is that I will chase it up and come back to the chamber, if not tonight then on Monday. There is a general sort of no-slogans policy. I will research it and come back to the Senate with an answer to your question.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I'm going to ask that, at least while I'm speaking, people hold their breath.
by leave—I move:
That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in my name for today, proposing the disallowance of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Concessional Application Fees) Regulations 2018, be postponed till the next day of sitting.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and Chisholm today relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.
What we saw from those attempted answers by Senator Cormann was basically evidence of the protection racket that he is running for the crossbench. The reason he needs to do that is that they are not willing to come in here and defend themselves and the way they have voted on these tax cuts. They're unfunded. They're unfair. It is really disappointing in the behaviour of the crossbench over the last 24 hours that they have not been willing to defend themselves for the outrageous behaviour that we've seen in this chamber.
We saw Senator Georgiou show up for the last five minutes of question time and Senator Griff show up for the last five minutes. But, when they had the opportunity earlier today to defend themselves for the way they've voted in the last 24 hours, they were silent. We took the opportunity to ask Senator Cormann to confirm what we know about how unfair these tax cuts are and how unfunded they are, and he would not defend the unfairness and the long-term damage that they will do to the Australian economy. But it's worth focusing on the remarkable performance of the crossbench over the last 24 hours, particularly that of Senator Hanson and the Centre Alliance.
But Senator Hinch, the self-styled justice warrior, shouldn't escape his blame for this either. There wasn't much justice for those who were opposed to these tax cuts. He likes to say that he's for defending freedom and defending people's ability to speak their mind. Well, he didn't display that courtesy to us over the last 24 hours. He sat there and voted with the government at every opportunity we had. That was a shameful performance by Senator Hinch and one that we will absolutely hold him to account for.
What we saw from the Centre Alliance and from Senator Hanson was the crossbench shuffle. Over the last couple of weeks, they would say one thing and then they would say, 'Oh, maybe we're not in favour; maybe we are,' but when push came to shove they did exactly what the government wanted. I'd love to set up a poker game with Senator Hinch and Senator Hanson's team and the Centre Alliance next week, because they got absolutely played off a break, and they did everything that this government wanted them to do. It was an absolutely shameful performance.
We highlighted this in the chamber today during question time. We will absolutely back up Penny Wong, the Labor Senate leader; we will back up federal Labor leader Bill Shorten and the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen; and we will absolutely fight these every day from now to the election, particularly in the Longman by-election and the other by-elections around the states as well.
What's important is that we go to the substance of it. I think it's really important that we understand in a crystal clear way what Senator Hanson and her team have signed up to. It was really alarming to hear what Senator Hanson said. I really don't think she fully comprehended the consequences of her decision in this chamber over the last 24 hours, when at a press conference she said: 'This is a great day.' Pauline Hanson was ecstatic in regard to her deal with the government. I think that just shows you how out of touch Senator Hanson and her team are about the consequences that this will have.
Let's be clear about what those are and the damage that it will do, particularly to those people that Senator Hanson purports to represent. We know that that's often just rhetoric on her part, but we actually see, with the decision that she's made in regard to this, the damage that it will do. Senator Hanson voted with the government to give herself a $7,000 a year tax cut. Senator Hanson supported the stage 3 income tax cuts, which go exclusively to the top 20 per cent of income earners, while 75 per cent get no benefit at all.
In regard to Longman—and this is topical; we know that there's a by-election imminent there—only 700 taxpayers in Longman will see the full benefit of Senator Hanson's decision to support stage 3, while 10,000 taxpayers in Wentworth will see the full benefit. Do you need a better example? Is there a more crystal clear example of how unfair what they voted for is? It is 700 people in Longman versus 10,000 in Wentworth. This is what they voted for. Senator Hanson and Senator Georgiou provided the two votes that the government needed. This is so unfair to the people of Longman. What a picture that makes about fairness: 700 people in Longman versus 10,000 in Wentworth. Also, to add to that, they voted against Labor's plan that would have almost doubled the tax cut for 63,000 taxpayers in Longman. So we see that, when it comes to Senator Hanson's priorities, they are: dealing with the government and abandoning those people who rely on her support the most.
Sometimes I have my issues with the crossbench, but can I particularly congratulate the crossbench as a whole—with one exception, I might say—on the way they have withstood the typical union bullying of the Labor Party opposition on this particular matter. Labor Party senators all come from the unions, and they take as their natural right the ability to bully anyone who doesn't agree with them. I've watched from this position over the last week or so how Labor Party union bullies have tried to belt the crossbench into submission. I don't always agree with the crossbench. In fact, sometimes I have very strong disagreements with them, but I think the way the Labor Party has relentlessly attacked them simply because they have made their own decisions on what is best for Australia is appalling, and it is an indictment of the Labor Party and the typical union bullying tactics that the Labor Party continue to exhibit.
The previous speaker indicated that every day between now and the next election they were going to back up Senator Wong as the Labor Senate leader and Mr Shorten. I must say I'm pleased to hear that, because the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate yesterday was an absolute disgrace, and most Australians who had the misfortune to hear question time and the debate yesterday on television or on radio share that view. The position of the Labor Party and its leaders went down many, many points yesterday because of the disgraceful conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in challenging the President. So I hope the Labor Party continue to support the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, because she is doing us a great service at the next election, and similarly with Mr Shorten. I'm critical of Mr Shorten, but not as critical as perhaps I could be, because I don't want him to leave. I want him to be there at the next election because, as I've often said, Mr Shorten is the government's best weapon at the next election.
The previous speaker seems to be fixated on Senator Hanson. Why do members of the Labor Party, particularly male members of the Labor Party, always seem to pick on women, whether it is women ministers or women on the crossbench? I don't know why that is, but they seem fixated on Senator Hanson and indicating what she would receive as a tax cut. Of course, they didn't want to say that Senator Wong would receive a tax cut of some $12,000. Senator Wong can, if she wants to, not accept it. She can give it back. There is all this holier than thou stuff. Let's see her give it back. But I can guarantee you that, when the tax cuts come in, Senator Wong will be the first to put the $12,000 in her back pocket.
The substantive issue which I thought the speaker was going to speak on is something that the debate has been held on over several weeks now, both in the various chambers of the parliament and more broadly. The plan that has been adopted by the Senate and by the Parliament of Australia is a plan that means all Australians are better off. We are lucky to live in a country in which we're able to work, to aspire and to earn more and not be penalised for it. I talk about aspiration, but I know most of those opposite don't understand what the term 'aspiration' means, and that's demonstrated by one of their senior shadow ministers. So I won't go there and confuse the opposition about aspiration. I simply emphasise that our plan doesn't create winners and losers. It isn't designed to pit Australians against each other. It's a plan that all Australians will share in, and it's a plan that I'm pleased the Parliament of Australia has supported.
I rise to participate in the take note debate on the answers provided by Minister Cormann to the questions I posed to him in question time regarding the Turnbull government's reliance on Senator Pauline Hanson's support for the Turnbull government's income tax scheme. Today we saw Senator Hanson, the self-proclaimed champion of the battlers of Queensland, vote once again with the Liberals, as she's done on every occasion this year, to give a great big tax cut to the battling investment bankers and barristers of Sydney and Melbourne.
The Liberal government's income tax scheme will see 60 per cent of the benefit go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. Let's be clear what that means. Only 700 taxpayers in Longman will benefit from stage 3 of the plan passed by Senator Pauline Hanson today, but 10,000 taxpayers in Wentworth will be $7,000 better off. In fact, Wentworth is ranked first in getting the most benefit from the Turnbull Liberal government's personal income tax scheme, but Longman is ranked 141 out of 150 electorates as to how it will benefit from the scheme that Senator Pauline Hanson voted for today.
In the answers given today by Senator Cormann he said that the government is grateful to Senator Hanson. I bet it is. I bet the government is very grateful for Senator Hanson. I bet the bankers of Wentworth are grateful. I bet the accountants, barristers and other high-income earners in Sydney and Melbourne are grateful, too. They are now the battlers that Senator Hanson represents. Senator Hanson had a choice. She could have voted to support Labor's plan to give every working Australian on less than $125,000 a tax cut of up to $928 a year, which is almost double the tax cut that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the Liberals will provide to low- and middle-income families. Senator Hanson voted against Labor's plan to double the tax cut for 63,000 people in Longman. Today, Senator Hanson says that teaming up with the government to defeat Labor's plan to almost double the government's tax cut for low- and middle-income earners was 'the only fair thing to do'. When the people of Longman look at the choice Senator Hanson made today to vote against a bigger tax cut for 63,000 of them and to vote for a bigger tax cut for tens of thousands of high-income earners in Sydney and Melbourne, it's hard to see how they're going to say that that was the fair thing to do.
Senator Hanson said in this Senate last year during the debate on Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 that:
They do not understand the position or possibly the intelligence of One Nation. We are a party that stands alone to look at the benefits of the policy, the legislation, that is put before this parliament …
Well, let's take a look at how Senator Hanson and One Nation managed this debate. During the debate on the income tax scheme, Senator Hanson told the Senate that:
The tax cuts are going to be up to $200,000. I'm a very fortunate Australian to be earning more than $200,000. I am paying tax of 45c in the dollar on that. I'm not getting tax relief.
Senator Hanson appears to misunderstand how the Australian marginal tax system works. By voting for stage 3, she has voted for tax relief for herself and for every other high-income earner in Australia. Australians earning over $200,000 will get tax relief under stage 3 of the Liberal's personal income tax scheme. In fact, the government's own calculator does say that Senator Hanson will get some $7,000 a year when stage 3 is fully implemented.
Senator Hanson also seems to misunderstand stage 1 of the Liberal's tax plan, which comes in the form of a tax refund that could have been passed with the support of the majority of this chamber any day this week if she had just voted to split the bill. If she had forced the Liberals to split the bill, we could have had this done and dusted and low- and middle-income earners could have had their tax relief. In fact, there was no need to even get this bill passed by 30 June. Because it comes in the form of a tax refund, it could have been passed any time over the next 12 months. No, what Senator Hanson and One Nation did today was team up with the Liberal government in a political tactic to hold tax relief for low- and middle-income workers hostage to tax relief for high-income earners. They cast in their lot to give the biggest benefit to those on the highest incomes and they walked away from giving a bigger tax cut to low- and middle-income workers.
As I said, Senator Cormann has said today that the government are grateful for Senator Hanson, and I am sure they are. What she has done today is join with the Liberal philosophy to make Australia a less fair place and to make it a place that will give benefits to the top end, hollow out the middle class and push more people into the working poor.
I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Cormann to a question without notice asked by Senator Keneally today relating to the tax package. I want to once again put the Centre Alliance's position on the personal income tax bill, in light of the childish attacks that have recently been levelled against us this place. As we have frequently made clear, we support tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians, the people that very much need it most. That is why we put forward an amendment to that effect yesterday, and when Labor copied our amendment we supported it. It is also worth noting that over the last few days Labor was all about supporting only the first part of the package, yet yesterday it was happy to support the first and second parts of the package, which provided tax cuts to people earning anything up to $120,000—an $80 billion hike from their position of just a few days ago. Labor have no qualms whatsoever about flip-flopping if it suits their own aims.
We voted to pass the full package today because we would rather see low- and middle-income earners get that promised money in their pocket than watch the whole package be dumped, as the holier-than-thou Greens and, to an extent, Labor, were prepared to. Our hands were tied, and we were forced to choose the good over the perfect, but if Labor gets in after the next election we are more than happy to support any moves they make to unravel the third stage of the bill. If the economy suffers any setback between now and 2024, when the third phase kicks in, it is incumbent on any government, be it Labor or Liberal, to do the right thing and reverse the high-end cuts.
Centre Alliance has put hardworking Australians above petty politics. The bill has been passed, and Labor and the Greens need to stop pretending this is all about giving money to millionaires. They should recognise that in an environment where wages are stagnant and living costs are going up the majority of people want and need a tax cut. Do the Greens and Labor—and Senator Storer, for that matter—really think that low- and middle-income Australians are going to be grateful that they attempted to deny hardworking Australians hundreds of extra dollars in their pay packet? My final message to them is: stop playing politics and accept reality—that is, despite you, low- and middle-income earners can now enjoy the benefit of extra money in their pockets, which could help offset their living expenses, be put towards themselves or their families and be put to good use in their community. A reminder to Labor: should you become the government in the next one or two elections, we will definitely back any bid you have to unravel the rest of the package, but for now we're not prepared to stand in the way of tax cuts that the majority of ordinary Australians want and will benefit from in this coming financial year.
Today will undoubtedly be the day that Senator Pauline Hanson is remembered once and for all for having come to this parliament not to stand up for battlers but to stand up for billionaires. Everything that Senator Hanson has been saying over the last two years about caring for battlers has been fully exposed today in her deciding to vote yet again with the Turnbull government to advantage high-income earners at the expense of low- and middle-income earners. Let there be no doubt that what Senator Hanson has done today is to yet again sign up and give the government support, another deal with the government, this time to lock in a tax cut that will cost the Australian budget $144 billion, most of which is going to go to high-income earners, particularly in electorates, like the Prime Minister's own, in the wealthy suburbs of Sydney. There is not very much in this for battlers whatsoever. Think about that: $144 billion. If the battlers Senator Hanson says she cares about could make a choice about where that $144 billion of taxpayers' money would be spent, does anyone seriously think that they would say, 'Pauline, what we want you to do is go down to Canberra and give Malcolm Turnbull's constituents in Point Piper on the Sydney Harbour a big tax cut'? Is that seriously what anyone thinks they would say?
I have actually spent a lot of time in places like Longman and Central Queensland—places that do have higher levels of support for Senator Hanson's party. People there are saying they want money spent on their health, on their hospitals, on their kids' education, on increasing pension levels and on apprenticeships and training. You don't very often run into someone in Rockhampton, Mount Morgan, Sarina or any of those towns in Central Queensland that Senator Hanson says that she cares about who are actually saying: 'Please, take money off me. Take money out of my hospitals, and can you please give that money to all the stockbrokers in Mr Turnbull's electorate? That's who really needs a leg-up.' No-one ever says that in Central Queensland. No-one ever says that in Longman. I doubt that anyone in any of those areas has ever said that to Senator Hanson.
So why is it that yet again she has come down here to parliament today and voted with the Liberals, voted with Mr Turnbull, to deliver these massive tax cuts to high-income earners, including herself—because, of course, one of the results of this is that Senator Hanson personally will get a $7,000 tax cut as a result of what was passed here today? None of the battlers in Longman, Central Queensland or anywhere else will be getting tax cuts anywhere near that size. In fact, they would have got bigger tax cuts had Senator Hanson been prepared to vote for Labor's tax cuts that we proposed and which were heavily targeted towards low- and middle-income earners. But no. Senator Hanson was too intent on maintaining her 100 per cent voting record this year with the Liberal Party and with Mr Turnbull. One hundred per cent of the time this year Senator Hanson has voted with the Liberals. Every single time there has been a bill put before the parliament by this government she's had a bit of a chat with them and sort of said, 'I'm not so sure,' but eventually does a deal with them and always signs up with them. This time it's going to cost taxpayers $144 billion.
Of course, she's not the only person who has grossly let down her constituents in coming to vote for these tax cuts today. The National Party also just have to hang their heads in shame. It's embarrassing watching the Liberal Party play the National Party time after time after time. We've been talking all week about the fact that these tax cuts will deliver the biggest benefit to the wealthiest electorates in the country, almost all of which are held by the Liberal Party, and people who will benefit least are in the poorest electorates in the country, and they are overwhelmingly represented by National Party MPs. Electorates in Queensland like Hinkler, Capricornia, Dawson and Flynn are held by National Party-aligned MPs who have come down to Canberra. They yet again toddled along and said: 'Malcolm Turnbull, what have I got to do today? Oh, your people need a tax cut? Okay. How can I help you do that? That's by ripping off my own people and cutting funding to my own hospitals, my own schools and my own TAFEs.' That's what these National Party MPs keep doing. It is incredibly embarrassing to see them sell out their own constituents and roll over time and time again for Malcolm Turnbull. (Time expired)
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 Di Natale today relating to the National Energy Guarantee.
Australians love renewable energy. They know that renewable energy lowers prices. In the latest Lowy poll, 84 per cent showed that they support renewable energy, while just 14 per cent want government to focus on coal and gas. Renewable energy is the future. It is absolutely the future. Indeed, it's the present. It's happening right now. And yet we have a government intent on blocking progress and denying Australia the clean energy future that awaits us.
We had a report today from Bloomberg New Energy Finance that made it very clear that we'll see around the corner Australia, if it takes advantage of the huge opportunities before us, becoming a renewable energy superpower. Sadly, the government isn't listening. It's got no plan, no vision for the future. Their energy plan is directionless. They are riven with disunity and division. It seems that the only energy policy that will suffice for Malcolm Turnbull is one that enables him to negotiate his way through the climate deniers within his government.
The National Energy Guarantee is a convoluted, confused policy that's intended to bamboozle the coalition backbench, so that they don't cotton on to the fact that no matter what policy framework you create pollution has to have a price associated with it. There is no other way. We need to recognise, even by their own failed neoliberal economics, that when you pollute you create an externality and that externality should be priced.
When Tony Abbott's review into the Renewable Energy Target caused an 88 per cent drop in renewables investment wholesale prices skyrocketed. No new generation was being built to drive competition and to drive down prices. Indeed, the blame for the crisis that people face right now with increasing energy costs needs to be laid directly at the hands of this government.
The ACCC's made it very, very clear that the lion's share of price rises can be attributed to poles and wires—another failure of a market. Privatised network companies and greedy state governments gamed the pricing framework, and that was established just to facilitate the profits of these companies. They built far more infrastructure than was required. It helped them to boost their profits, and what they did was to pass the cost on to people's energy bills. That's the reason that people are struggling and that failure can be laid at the feet of this government.
Then you have the energy retailers. Recent polling shows that, even though it's hard to imagine, they have become less popular than the banks. It's another example where you have a failed market where the privatisation of essential assets and essential services has failed Australians. Tasmania has the lowest retail costs in the country, because they're a state-owned enterprise and the energy market is heavily regulated. Victoria, which has been deregulated more than any other jurisdiction, has the highest costs. Contestability was supposed to drive down costs—remember that?—but it's done the opposite. They're gouging profits, they're relying on confusing pricing regimes to keep customers in the dark and they're extracting super profits for themselves.
The big driver of recent price rises is also due to the huge investment uncertainty, which again is the result of government policy. In 2020, in just a year and a half's time, investment's going to fall off a cliff, because the Renewable Energy Target finishes. Then we have a National Energy Guarantee that's locks in emissions reductions of just 0.3 per cent a year over the next decade. What that does is it shores up the ageing, clunky coal-fired power stations that were built in the 1970s and need to be mothballed.
Government's got a choice: it can either cling to the past—it can try and use this again as an electoral weapon to try to beat the opposition over the head with and in doing so it's going to push up power prices, continue the uncertainty and hold back renewables—or it can embrace the future. It's good for power bills, it's good for the environment, it's good for all of us— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make short statement.
Leave not granted.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Canavan for today, on account of parliamentary business.
Question agreed to.
I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 6 of 2018 of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak briefly to the tabling of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 6 of 2018.
The committee would like to highlight a particular issue of concern that has recently come to its attention and is discussed in this monitor, and in previous monitors this year.
The issue relates to section 15D of the Legislation Act 2003. This section provides that if an incorrect version of an instrument—that is, not the version signed by the rule-maker—is registered in error on the Federal Register of Legislation, the First Parliamentary Counsel must correct it, essentially replacing it with the version that was signed by the rule-maker.
This can happen even if the changes made are substantial and not just typographical, as there is no restriction on how significant a correction can be made.
The committee understands that incorrect legislative instruments should be fixed quickly. This is especially important because most become law very soon after they are registered.
However, sometimes instruments are corrected under section 15D after they have been tabled in parliament. In these cases, there is no requirement in the Legislation Act that the corrected version of the instrument be re-tabled, nor does parliament have to be advised that the tabled version of the instrument has been changed. As a result, senators and members may not realise that changes have been made. They may therefore lose the opportunity to consider the correct version of the instrument during part or all of its disallowance period.
For this reason, the committee considers that the operation of section 15D has the potential to have a significant adverse impact on parliamentary oversight of legislative instruments.
The committee has written to the Attorney-General about this issue, and he has instructed his department to consider the committee's suggestions when the act is reviewed in 2021.
In the meantime, the committee emphasises that the process of making and registering legislative instruments should be undertaken with sufficient care to ensure that incorrect versions of instruments are not registered in the first place.
The committee has also stated its expectation that where an incorrect instrument has already been tabled, and the correction of it would involve making a substantive change to its text, the rule-maker should consider re-making or amending the instrument rather than using the administrative corrections power.
The committee will continue to actively monitor this issue.
I commend the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 6 of 2018 to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
I present Scrutiny Digest No. 6 of 2018 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates:
Additional estimates 2016-17—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 22 November 2017 and 10 May 2018—Employment portfolio.
Budget estimates 2017-18—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 20 June 2017 and 10 May 2018—
Education and Training portfolio.
Employment portfolio.
Budget estimates 2017-18 (Supplementary)—
Economics Legislation Committee—
Additional information received between 20 October 2017 and 31 January 2018—
Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
Hansard record of proceedings.
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—
Additional information received between 4 December 2017 and 28 February 2018—
Education and Training portfolio.
Employment portfolio
Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.
Additional estimates 2017-18—
Finance and Public administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 27 March and 21 June 2018—
Finance portfolio.
Indigenous matters across portfolios.
Parliamentary departments.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 28 March and 8 May 2018—
Defence portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the fifth report of 2018, Human rights scrutiny report, together with the committee's annual report for 2016-17, and I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows
The statement was unavailable at the time of publishing.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the annual report.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights annual report for 2016-17 covers a range of issues that, I think, bear attention of the Senate. We know that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is one of the key committees in this parliament. It examines and reports on the human rights compatibility of all bills and legislative instruments that come before the parliament. In those Monday evening meetings in every sitting period, we can have a large number of bills and instruments in front of us that take considerable time for close scrutiny and also involve a great deal of discussion. It is a very important committee. I know a number of members in this place have served on the committee, and I hope many more will take the opportunity to read some of the reports and see some of the recommendations made by our committee on our responsibilities under the human rights legislation, to which we are party, for consideration of all legislation that comes before our parliament. It's most important that we understand that all legislation that comes before the parliament is subject to scrutiny by the human rights committee.
Australia has voluntarily accepted obligations under the seven core United Nations human rights treaties, and it's a general principle of international human rights law that the rights protected by the human rights treaty are to be interpreted generously and any limitations on human rights are to be interpreted narrowly. Accordingly, and this is important for the role of the committee, the primary focus of the committee's report is determining whether any identified limitation of a human right is justifiable. That's often where debates occur, because there is no particular statement that says that everything has to apply and that there is no human right that cannot be questioned. What the committee does consider, and the committee takes its responsibilities very seriously, is that human rights law recognises that reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms. There are very few absolute rights that cannot be limited in any circumstances, and all the other rights must be limited as long as the limitation meets certain standards. There are a number of key criteria that our committee looks at: rights need to be prescribed by law, be in pursuit of a legitimate objective, be rationally connected to the stated objective, and be a proportionate way to achieve that objective.
What I want to discuss this evening is that this annual report draws particular attention to the statements of compatibility that are prepared by ministers and ministers' offices that come to the committee for consideration. As I've said, it is the responsibility of the ministers to explain what, if any, is the impact of our compatibility on the core human rights responsibilities, and, if there could be any way that an impact on these human rights laws is being recommended in legislation, what is the reason and does it meet those criteria that I've explained.
What we have found over the period that I've been on the committee—which is this parliament and part of the last parliament—is that way too often these statements of compatibility do not fulfil the expectations of professional ministerial offices. We get basic statements of compatibility. There are very few times that we don't receive a statement from a minister's office. It happens rarely. We receive a statement that actually links the legislation to the human rights responsibilities. And then it is the responsibility of the minister's office to make a case to identify whether, in fact, there have been decisions that used the proportionality defence to say why there is a justifiable reason—a reason that the can be defended—that a particular human right may be called into question.
We are not getting the quality of responses across the board that we should expect in a system that has been operational in our parliament for a number of years. For about four parliaments now, we have had an operational Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, so it's not new. Our chair, Mr Ian Goodenough from the other place, made a statement in this year's annual report which talks about the timeliness of the reports. And this is worrying in itself, because the whole object of our committee is that we consider the human rights responsibilities before the bills or the instruments are debated in this place. Because, actually, that's the idea: that parliament knows the human rights responsibilities when we are debating the legislation. It's really helpful if we find out that bills meet our human rights requirement. More importantly, we can find out several months after the parliament has passed the legislation that it doesn't meet our requirements. The reason for that is the timeliness and the adequacy and the effectiveness of the ministerial statements.
We have on record for the last 12 months that 30 per cent of responses were on time and 68 per cent were late. Two per cent were outstanding—which means we haven't even got a response from the ministerial office. I'm not going to name the offices because that's inappropriate, but if this continues it may well be that we have to have this debate openly, because it is a requirement of the parliament that all legislation and regulations should be subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Timeliness is very important, but what is necessary is that when the reports are received they are complete. I see Senator Reynolds across the chamber. The number of times we spend hours on a Monday evening and then have to refer questions back to the ministerial office because the arguments that are there do not effectively respond to the needs of the committee! That's just a waste of everyone's time. If we just meet a particularly difficult or sensitive point and we need more information, of course that would be standard practice. But, if it's just because it's sloppy or inadequate work, it's offensive to the minister, because the minister's name is signed on it; to the very professional secretariat of this committee, who work so hard to ensure that we have the best possible support; to the professional adviser we have; and also to the members and senators who have been appointed to this committee and who give up their time to ensure that this scrutiny is effective.
So I think it's important. The human rights committee secretariat has put out a very impressive, professional drafting statement for compatibility statements, Guidance Note 1. That's on the website and it's in the system. If you're writing a compatibility statement, if you follow these processes, you should come very close to getting it right. So we draw that to the attention of various departments so that we can justifiably take up our responsibilities in this committee.
I also want to put on notice that this afternoon I want to talk about another committee, but I'm going to run out of time. We in the human rights committee did a full and very interesting inquiry this year on 18C. I think it was a particularly effective use of the joint human rights committee to use this process, and I'll talk about that at another time. But what I want to say—and I hope that all members of the committee know it—is that, in the report of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals which our government is going to take to the UN in a couple of weeks time, there is a particular statement about the role of our Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights. It says that Australia has been a leading supporter of national human rights institutions globally. It talks about the incredibly important role of the Australian Human Rights Commission and how it promotes human rights in the wider community. It talks about our committee in parliament and says that we have this focus on human rights in our parliament. Again, it is celebrating the fact that we not only sign up to core human rights treaties internationally but take them seriously and ensure, as I've said before, that all legislation and all legislative instruments that come before the parliament are subject to human rights consideration. So I think it's very impressive. I believe it's going to be Minister Connie Fierravanti-Wells who will be taking this report to the UN. The report indicates to the international community—because certainly the SDG framework is based on respect for human rights across the world—that the Australian parliament has a committee that reports regularly. We've had the most recent report this evening, on the legislation we've looked at in the last few months, and there is also the annual report. There is also our role now on the United Nations Human Rights Council. So we not only talk about human rights but also assess our performance and live the importance of human rights. As we know, we've just had the unfortunate news about the decision of the US government to remove itself from the UN Human Rights Council. I think it's most important that countries like Australia continue to celebrate our commitment to and our absolute knowledge of and respect for human rights in our parliament.
I congratulate Senator Moore on her contribution. Senator Moore is a very active member of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights.
A regular attendant.
Yes, indeed. So thank you. I rise to speak to the 2016-17 annual report of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights, because this is an important committee and does extraordinary work. The secretariat is a very hardworking, professional secretariat and should be congratulated on the work that it has done throughout the year and on putting this report together, along with, of course, the chair of the committee, Mr Ian Goodenough.
The role of the committee is to scrutinise legislation before the parliament and to consider these matters with respect to their impact on human rights under our international obligations. First and foremost, the committee was set up to act preventatively in order to safeguard human rights through the legislative process. To that end, we work together to examine various pieces of legislation, ensure their compatibility with human rights and report to the House and the Senate on this. We are also an educative body and, where possible, seek to raise awareness of legislation that promotes human rights and broadcast work that safeguards human rights.
The previous period for which this annual report is reporting was very busy for the committee, with a total of 405 bills and acts considered as well as 2,942 legislative instruments. It is important to let the Senate know what some of the most commonly engaged rights that were identified in legislation are and what the committee has put together in this annual report. There's a section on it. It's very important for all the senators and the members of the House of Representatives to actually go and grab a copy of the annual report, if they haven't already done so, and read through the work of the committee and what the committee has done. It is important to see some of the issues that are continually raised within the committee. The report that we have before us puts together these issues in a very clear way as to some of the things that can be done. Senator Moore talked about these things in her contribution, particularly around the compatibility statement. There is work that needs to be done there.
I will just take a few moments to talk through some of those most commonly engaged human rights which have been identified in legislation and commented on during the reporting period. They are listed in order. They are: the right to privacy, the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to a fair trial, the right to a fair hearing, the right to an adequate standard of living, the protection of the respect for family life, the right to social security, the right to be assumed innocent, the right to freedom of expression or opinion, the rights of children and the best interests of the child. As you can see, this is extremely important work that this committee carries out. What we saw in the committee was that a number of the key rights came up time and time again. That was most notably through social security, workplace relations and migration legislation. I'm pretty proud of the work that this committee does and that the very, very active committee members have undertaken. I'm proud that the committee has been able to complete such important work.
While the nature of much of this legislation has clearly been contentious, we on the opposite side of the chamber can work compatibly, at times, to project our views across the chamber. The work of the committee is undertaken in a cross-party fashion to ensure that our human rights obligations come first and foremost. Indeed, some of the legislative measures that we looked at over the course of the last year were highly political matters. We examined the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and the Building and Construction Legislation Amendment Act 2016. We considered the grounds for the cancellation of registered organisations and what may be displayed or prohibited from display. These are matters that I and my colleagues from other parties have had widely diverging views on. We were able to work together in the committee nonetheless, considering the human rights implications of these pieces of legislation, in order to ensure that the right to freedom of association, the right to collectively bargain and the right to freedom of expression continue to be upheld in Australia now and into the future.
In assessing the impact of legislation on the rights of Australians, the committee considers the seven core treaties to which Australia is a party. Most notably, I'm proud to consider the impact of legislation on Australians with respect to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a matter of great importance to me in my capacity as shadow minister for disability and carers. Australia signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities alongside 80 other countries in 2007, the same time I joined this committee. At this time the convention had already been in development, as people have been calling on the UN to adopt such legislation since the early eighties. When we looked at how this convention was enacted and safeguarded in Australian legislation, the committee often did so with respect to the right to freedom of expression or opinion. After all, in a society that is not inclusive and accessible to all, how can one truly engage in full freedom of expression or opinion? This was therefore a matter that we looked into across approximately four per cent of the legislation we reviewed, including in relation to the workplace relations legislation and the migration legislation.
It is critical that we continue this work as a committee, also acting as a check and balance for the legislative process to ensure that at all times we are safeguarding the rights of persons with disability. The role of this committee is to continue to provide scrutiny across all legislation and across all areas of human rights to make sure that this is not something that we are addressing only with singular pieces of legislation at isolated moments in time. That is why the committee often refers to statements of compatibility. And, as I've mentioned, Senator Moore in her contribution went through some of the details and some of the issues and concerns the committee has around statements of compatibility that have been supplied. The statement of compatibility with human rights accompanies the bills and the legislative instruments. It is a requirement that bills and legislative instruments provide a statement of compatibility with human rights, but it's not a requirement that such a statement take a specific form. This is one reason statements of compatibility can be highly variable and unfortunately one reason they're often lacking key details. We've seen through this process that if we don't have statements of compatibility that are thorough and that address the detail of the legislation we continue to have to go back to ministers asking them to provide information about the statement of compatibility.
While it is indicated in the annual report, signed off by Mr Goodenough, that timeliness in terms of reporting during the last period was an issue, most of the legislation that we've seen before the committee did adhere to the requirements set out under the statement of compatibility, and we actually did see that most of the— (Time expired)
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the three reports of the committee listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business, entitled Review of the re-declaration of Mosul District, Ninewa Province, Iraq, Review of the re-listing of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-eMohammad and Lashkar-e Jhangvi as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Codeand Review of the re-listing of Hizballah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the reports.
The declared area provisions of the Criminal Code make it an offence for people to enter or remain in an area of a foreign country that has been declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The first report I've tabled today concerns the minister's recent renewal of the declaration of the Mosul district in Iraq. Under the legislation, the committee is able to review a declaration and report its findings to the parliament within 15 days of the disallowance period. Due to the timing of the re-declaration of Mosul, the recommendations made in the committee's recent Review of the Declared Area Provisions were not able to be factored-in to the Minister for Foreign Affairs' declaration; however, those recommendations were considered during both the private hearings and in the committee's deliberations.
The committee concluded that the appropriate processes have been followed and, after the private hearings, accepted that a listed terrorist organisation, the Islamic State, continues to engage in hostile activity in the Mosul district, Ninewa Province, Iraq. While Islamic State no longer exercises territorial control over Mosul district, territorial control is not currently one of the key non-legislative factors outlined in the protocol for declaring an area. The committee has supported a suggestion from ASIO that the existing protocol be expanded to include the extent to which a listed terrorist organisation exercises territorial control over an area, and other key factors relevant to the declaration of an area. The committee supports the re-declaration of Mosul district and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instrument.
The second and third reports I have presented today concern the relisting of terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. Under the Criminal Code, it's an offence to direct the activities of, be a member of, associate with or conduct a range of activities in support of a listed terrorist organisation. The Criminal Code enables the committee to review all listings of terrorist organisations and report its findings to the parliament within the 15-day disallowance period. In relation to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e Jhangvi, each of these terrorist organisations continues to engage in and advocate terrorism. Although there are no known direct links between any of the organisations and Australia, and none have made statements specifically threatening Australia or Australian interests, or would consider Westerners, including Australians, to be legitimate targets for attack, sometimes the indiscriminate nature of their attacks and the disregard for loss of life means that Australians could be caught up in such attacks. All three are listed as proscribed terrorist organisations in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. They are also listed in the United Nations Security Council 1267 Committees Consolidated List. None are engaged in any peace or mediation process.
The committee is satisfied that the appropriate processes have been followed and concludes that these three organisations continue to meet the definition of a terrorist organisation. The committee finds no reason to disallow the legislative instruments.
Finally, Hezbollah's External Security Organisation, the ESO, is a discrete branch or entity within Hezbollah's military wing. The ESO is positioned alongside, but distinct from, Hezbollah's formal militia and military activity. The ESO has an ongoing program of contingency planning for terrorist activities around the world; provides training, operational support and materiel to Palestinian extremist groups; and is not engaged in any peace or mediation processes. At a private hearing, the committee sought clarification as to why the Criminal Code listing is limited to the ESO. The Department of Home Affairs advised that any broadening of the listing—for example, from Hezbollah's ESO to its military wing—would have implications for Australia's bilateral relationship with Lebanon.
The committee was satisfied that appropriate processes have been followed and that the ESO meets the definition of a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code. Consequently, and on this occasion, the committee supports the relisting of the ESO as a terrorist organisation and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instrument. However, the committee did not consider that adequate evidence was provided regarding the decision not to include the military wing of Hezbollah in the listing. The committee also noted that the proscription of the ESO is now inconsistent with the approach taken by some of Australia's closest security partners: Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the government further consider extending the listing to include Hezbollah's military wing.
I commend the reports to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australia's trade and investment relationships with the countries of Africa, together with the Hansard record of proceedings, and documents presented to the committee.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I'm pleased to speak on this report on Australia's trade and investment relationships with the countries of Africa. Right at the outset I'd like to put on the record that, like a lot of the Senate work that goes unremarked and unrewarded, it is an extremely good representation of the bipartisan, collegiate efforts of all senators who partook in the inquiries and the writing of the report. In particular, Senator Reynolds's contribution was over and above, if you like, in terms of getting people to come to the inquiries and contributing to the final outcome.
We received about 32 written submissions, and two public hearings were held, the first on 2 May 2018 and the second on 11 May 2018, in Canberra. The committee heard from a range of stakeholders from the public, private and non-government sectors, each with their unique perspective on the relationships between Australia and Africa. At the Canberra hearing the committee had the pleasure of speaking with 16 African heads of mission. Sixteen African heads of mission came to the hearing here in Canberra, and the committee would like to extend its warm thanks to all of those ambassadors and high commissioners for appearing. This showing clearly demonstrated the high regard in which Australia-Africa relationships are held.
At this point I want to quote from an article in The Washington Post in March of this year that talked about the AfCFTA, which is the African Continental Free Trade Area, which was initiated in Rwanda on 21 March:
This will be one of the world's largest free-trade areas in terms of the number of countries, covering more than 1.2 billion people and over $4 trillion in combined consumer and business spending if all 55 countries join.
So I think it is reasonably prescient of the committee to have covered the topic at the same time that this fundamental shift in trade agreements is happening in Africa. As senators may recall, the topic of Australia's relationship with the countries of Africa was covered by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, with their report being tabled in June 2011. Whilst the terms of reference of that inquiry were broader, the joint committee made a number of recommendations regarding Australia's trade and investment relationship with Africa, many of which were agreed to at the time by the government.
The committee was pleased to hear from witnesses regarding the recent signing of the framework to establish the African Continental Free Trade Area. Whilst this agreement is some way from being fully implemented, once in force it will not only boost trade between African countries but also provide Australian companies based in a single African country with unprecedented market access across the continent. The committee has recommended that developments in the implementation of this agreement be monitored closely so as to provide Australian businesses with the best possible opportunity to grow in new areas of Africa.
In respect of mining, the committee is pleased to note that Australia's existing trade and investment relationship with many African countries is robust, founded largely on the wide footprint of Australia's mining company operations in Africa. The committee heard that there are currently over 170 Australian mining companies operating in Africa and the current and potential investment in this sector is estimated to be worth in the order of $40 billion. The committee has recommended a review of data collection on Australian mining projects in Africa to ensure that the information on this important sector is comprehensive and up to date.
While mining itself produces a range of benefits including job creation in African communities, the committee heard from witnesses that described the ways in which Australian mining companies in Africa are working to ensure sustainable economic development for their host communities beyond the life of the mine. We heard that mining companies are focused on leaving a functioning economy after the extractive activities and the rehabilitation, with the provision of important community services of electricity, water and a sustainable agricultural base. This is really important and excellent work that is going on and is probably not spoken about and is basically unrewarded. In order to build on this positive work, the committee has recommended a review of Australian mining and METS companies operating on the African continent who undertake engagement and provide services or assistance to the communities in which they operate. As our foreign minister is very keen to look at private sector involvement in our foreign aid program, it's a really good template to have an evaluation of.
The committee was also pleased to hear that Australian companies are well positioned to assist African countries in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. For example, the company spoke with Base Resources, Business for Development and the Cotton On group, who described their innovative Kwale Cotton Project in Kenya. This project provides smallholder farmers in areas surrounding the mine with the knowledge and skills to produce ethical cotton for sale back into the Australian market. This not only provides farmers with a reliable source of income but ensures that Australian businesses like Cotton On have access to a secure and transparent supply chain.
Witnesses spoke of the lack of energy infrastructure across many regions of Africa as posing a barrier to sustainable development. The committee heard from Australian companies such as Carnegie Clean Energy and Windlab, who have capabilities to provide solutions to many of these issues. The committee also heard that Australia's existing presence in the African mining space provides an ideal platform for these businesses to access African markets. The committee has therefore recommended a round of funding for these projects that contribute to the achievement of Africa's Sustainable Development Goals through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Business Partnership Platform.
While mining forms the cornerstone of Australia's current investment in Africa, it is by no means the only sector in which Australia is working on our relationships. Given the huge potential for growth in Australia's presence in African non-extractive industries across technology, communications, renewable energy, retail and agriculture, the committee recommended in this report that Austrade actively monitor new trade and investment opportunities in Africa for Australian businesses.
The committee received evidence about some of the barriers affecting Australia's trade and investment with the countries of Africa, including the security challenges Australian businesses may face when operating in remote regions. The committee heard examples of businesses supplementing Australian government advice with privately sourced security advice. In order to provide additional assistance, the committee has recommended a review of DFAT's Smartraveller advice platforms to ensure that tailored and specific advice is provided to Australian businesses operating in Africa.
The committee heard from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, who explained that Australia's expertise in agribusiness, particularly in harsh climates, has proven to be very transferable to an African context. Through projects such as the Australia-Africa Plant Biosecurity Partnership, Australia is helping to develop a robust agricultural sector, particularly in eastern and southern Africa, and in turn strengthening the foundations for improved trade links between Africa and Australia. The committee has recommended that an increase in funding to ACIAR be considered to ensure they can continue to grow their important work in Africa.
The diplomatic footprint has been a subject of contention. While interactions with Australia's diplomatic missions in Africa for trade and investment purposes have largely and broadly been positive, these missions have a limited footprint which can present challenges for businesses operating in Africa. However, the committee noted that DFAT are currently exploring innovative and versatile new methods of diplomacy that could allow Australia to expand its diplomatic footprint in new ways. In light of this, the committee has recommended a review of Australia's diplomatic presence in Africa, with a particular focus on applying these new diplomatic methods in the African context. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I also rise to speak on the report on Australia's trade investment relationships with the countries of Africa. First of all, as Deputy Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I congratulate Senator Gallacher for his chairmanship of this inquiry and I endorse all of his comments on the contents of the report. It is a very significant report and I hope it's not, as Senator Gallacher said, one of those wonderfully bipartisan reports that just sits on a shelf, because it has a lot to offer our country and also many nations across Africa.
I've said previously in this place that Africa matters to Australia, and I believe it matters a great deal. As Senator Gallacher said, it is very likely soon to become the largest free trade area in the world. Australia's two-way goods and merchandise trade with Africa was valued at $7.6 billion last year alone and is now set to grow considerably across many different industrial sectors. In my home state of Western Australia—and those here know it wouldn't be a speech from me without mentioning Western Australia!—exports to many countries in Africa are now worth over $1.4 billion a year. But I think the most significant thing for me is that Western Australia is home to over 150 ASX listed companies with up to 600 advanced resource projects at last count across 35 African countries. It was very, very interesting to me when I went to represent the Australian government last year at Mining Indaba that I had to go all the way to Cape Town to meet half of West Perth! It was a very revealing trip and it led me on the journey to standing up here today talking about our relationship with many African countries.
I know today through the various committee work that I do that the Australian government faces a range of challenging and often competing strategic priorities, firstly, in our region and then, more widely, globally. With everything else going on in the world today competing for our limited resources in terms of people, government focus and finances, it is very easy to overlook the significance of the scale and scope of our trade investment relationship with countries right across the African continent. But now is the time—I firmly believe this and so do all members of the committee who participated in this inquiry—to re-examine our relationship with this wonderfully vibrant and diverse continent. It has almost a billion people, and millions and millions of Africans every year are moving into the middle class. Many of them will be very eager for the goods and services that we can provide. For me, it's been very clear, too, that we have much to offer each other. This is particularly the case when it comes to my focus at the moment on Western Australia and the mining industry in terms of the ability to provide some really interesting new opportunities for economic diplomacy across the continent in the areas of our sustainable development goals, achievement and many other factors.
As I said, last year I had the honour of representing the Australian government at Mining Indaba, and one of the things that struck me the most when I came back after a week there of engaging with hundreds of delegates from across the African continent—from government, bureaucracy and mining companies—is that Australian companies are doing some extraordinary work in their communities across the continent. But it's a story that hasn't yet been captured or analysed further to have a look at what our companies can do in leaving a lasting legacy individually in the communities they work in. A lot of our companies, very early on, were engaging with local communities and finding out what was required in a community.
When they develop their own projects, they do things like bringing extra roads, power, sewerage, sanitation—all of those sorts of things—into the local community and not just to support their mine sites. But also, as Senator Gallacher has said, there are examples of companies now regularly working with the local community on how to better use their tenement lands. Whether it's to have new agricultural opportunities or training the local communities in providing the skills to develop their land and other associated businesses, there are some extraordinary circumstances.
I'm not claiming for a second that every single Australian company is fully virtuous in terms of what it's doing locally. But I think that, with this generation of mining executives and staff, they actually do want to make a difference because it's not only good business to engage and support the local community it is inherently the right thing for them to do. Since this visit and subsequent engagement with Australian mining companies, with DFAT and with a number of other organisations, I've got a much better understanding of those opportunities and the things that we are doing across the African continent.
Like Senator Gallacher, I'd also like to give a specific shout-out to Australia's very limited but absolutely fantastic heads of mission across the continent. They do an extraordinary job. Most of them are looking after multiple countries and Australia's interests in multiple countries. That can be very logistically challenging and brings a range of other issues as well. But they are doing an amazing job. I particularly want to commend them for the work they're doing with Austrade and the trade section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade because they are looking after Australia's interests, not only looking out for the security of our personnel on the ground in some very, very challenging environments but looking for these new economic diplomacy opportunities.
Australia's relationship value, as I've come to learn, goes well beyond mining. We share significant economic and particularly security interests with many African nations. One of the opportunities I believe that we've got is because the couple of hundred—at least—companies operating across the African continent, every single day, live or die, literally, by their understanding of the security circumstances in that environment. They have significant security knowledge and understanding of the local terrorist organisations and other community issues, which I don't believe that Australian and other nations' security and intelligence agencies are making nearly enough use of. A lot of these companies are starting to work together to provide a common picture and understanding of what is happening in those areas to support other companies and other companies' staff to keep them as safe as possible.
Another shout-out for another fantastic organisation which DFAT is engaging with in a rather untraditional method—but I think in a highly successful way—goes to the Australia-Africa Minerals & Energy Group, which are based in Western Australia. They represent the Australian METS sector and extractive sectors that are working across the African continent. They provide enormously valuable liaison and cooperation with those organisations, but the fact that they're working so closely and engaging regularly with DFAT I think is a great model that we should be capturing and looking to engage and roll out in other parts of the world.
In this report, as Senator Gallacher has said, the committee makes 17 recommendations for the Commonwealth government to consider, all of which I think are eminently implementable without significant resources. A lot of them are just different ways of thinking about how we engage with countries which, while not necessarily in our immediate region, certainly are west of Western Australia. I think we can be making a lot better use of that.
These 17 recommendations stand to deepen and strengthen the relationship between the two continents and also between the businesses. I am delighted that the bipartisan report has included a recommendation on providing more detailed advice to Australian businesses that are currently operating on the African continent and those that are looking now to engage in Africa on how to utilise the local knowledge that we already have gained through other companies and from DFAT.
Another significant recommendation that I would like to highlight in the short time I have left is the recommendation that DFAT review their Smartraveller advice platform with a view to providing more tailored and specific information to Australian businesses operating on the African continent. Whether it's because we have limited heads of mission across the continent or whether it's because—as some of the African heads of mission who presented to the committee advised—we don't necessarily have a deep understanding of what goes on in each country, I think we do a disservice to those African nations, and also to Australians who want to engage with those companies. The fact that we have very generic and often very sensationalist and alarmist travel advice serves neither those countries nor our country very well. I commend this report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I particularly thank the committee for doing this inquiry. As both Senator Gallacher and Senator Reynolds have said, it's an important report, and I'm sure it will certainly be one that I, as Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and, more broadly, the department of foreign affairs will look at very, very closely.
I was fortunate to visit Africa in January last year. I attended the meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa and also took the opportunity to open our embassy in Addis Ababa. Then I went down to South Africa as well. Senator Gallacher put on record the statistics about Australia's presence in Africa and they are, indeed, very impressive. There are about 170 Australian Securities Exchange listed companies worth an estimated $40 billion operating in about 35 African countries. I'm pleased that this inquiry has brought to light the work that those companies are doing. I was advised of the very positive work that a lot of those companies were doing, particularly in their community engagement. It's good to see that this report has brought that to light.
Of course, we do have strong and very enduring ties. Let's not forget the African diaspora. There are about 500,000 people of African heritage in Australia. I understand that, conservatively, they remit about $1 billion back to Africa. The remittances from Australia to Africa are very important.
There are a couple of things that Australia is doing in Africa that I do want to mention in particular. During my visit, I was very pleased to announce that Australia would partner with the African Union Commission to support its very important work in empowering women in Africa. This was a million-dollar investment to complement the gender focus of our Australian development assistance across Africa, including our flagship Australia Awards program. As at last year, we had over 5,500 Australia Awards alumni, and the professional development that this has given to people in very important areas is very pertinent to Africa's development.
I will also mention a couple of really inspiring visits that I had. One was work that was being done by CBM Australia, which supported the national clubfoot program at the CURE children's hospital. We had a wonderful visit to the Hamlin fistula hospital to see the wonderful work that Catherine Hamlin does and that her foundation has done in that hospital. She has done this work and given hope to so many women across Africa who have suffered greatly as a consequence of childbirth and the problems associated with childbirth. To see some of their faces in that hospital was truly amazing. She is truly an amazing woman.
Debate interrupted.
I move:
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 80 (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018) and;
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
Question agreed to.
I must say I am thrilled to speak to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 this afternoon. For far too long, politics has failed to properly represent young people or the issues we care about. There are many within this place and beyond who think young people don't care about our world or haven't earned the right to participate in our society from a perceived lack of experience or maturity. There are those who do not or cannot look to the future and, for that reason, see young people as a threat. In fact, many in this place see the disengagement of my generation from politics as politically convenient, even ideal. Young people need some political capital. Young people need some leverage.
There are almost 600,000 of us who are, by and large, deemed to be adults by our society and yet cannot participate in the decisions being made about their future. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds can work full time, pay tax, contribute to superannuation, drive a car and own a car and therefore pay stamp duty to contribute to maintenance of our roads and public transport infrastructure. They can legally have sex and make medical decisions about their bodies. They can join our political parties, all except, of course, the absent Ms Hanson's party. In many cases, they can be treated as an adult by our criminal justice system. In short, they cannot vote although they are treated in many ways by our society as adults.
The rise of digital media means that my generation is plugged into the 24-hour news cycle and is taking part in actions and activism to shape their world. They care deeply about the issues and they care deeply about the future of all of us. They don't see politics as representative of them at this current time, but this is our problem as legislators, not theirs as citizens. In the last few years there has been a surge of young people making their voices heard about issues that matter to them. The marriage equality plebiscite and Justice for Elijah are just two key examples from the Australian context. From a global perspective, March For Our Lives and the Black Lives Matter movements have been led from the front by young people.
My generation will have to live with the consequences of the decisions made in this place for the longest time. The fact that I am the youngest person in this place by close to a decade, and that I am the only person under the age of 30, speaks volumes about the lack of representation of Australia's young people in our political system. It is time we recognised 16- and 17-year-olds and their contribution. It is time we recognised they should have the right to a vote and that they make an enormous contribution to our society.
This a matter of importance not just for my generation but for everyone in this place who has a child or has grandchildren and is concerned about the world they will inherit—the world that we are crafting here. Your children and grandchildren will live with the consequences of the decisions we make in this place. On some days, that is a rather terrifying thought. It is true in Australia that young people aged between 18 and 24 are more disengaged from politics than other demographics, but they are not alone in their feeling of disenfranchisement, their feeling of frustration and their feeling that this place and the governments that reside in it can, should and must do so much better. Imagine if your life and your future were being shaped by others and yet you had no say? Young people care deeply about issues and they care deeply about their future. It is politics that does not care about them. It is our political system that is letting them down.
It is not hard to understand why, when you consider that the average age of a politician in this place is over 51 and when you consider that there are only three of us under the age of 35, and yet that same age bracket, the under 35s, represent more than 40 per cent of the population. This is not genuine representation. It is little wonder that young people feel ignored and shut out. Yet, the old parties—the Liberal Party, the National Party, and, sadly, Shorten's Labor Party—spend most of their time squabbling over who can give the biggest tax cuts, trying to buy votes for the next election instead of implementing policies to create a positive, fair future for the next generation.
What this bill seeks to do is lower the voting age to 16 in Australia, whilst leaving the age of compulsory voting at 18. This will serve as a grace period for young people, allowing us to familiarise ourselves with our electoral process without the fear of being penalised. It will facilitate greater civics education and allow teachers to bring the democratic process, not partisan politics, into the classroom in a tangible way. It will foster a culture of civic participation among young people, leaving them in good stead for the rest of their lives, as we know that voting is, in fact, a habit. We want them to form this habit early, so that it stays with them.
To give the chamber an example, in Scotland during the independence referendum in 2014 a decision was made to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote and to participant for the first time. Almost 80 per cent of that age group turned out—and the cohort now continues to turn out—at much higher rates than their predecessors, who weren't given an earlier opportunity. In Austria, the 16- and 17-year-old demographic has a higher level of participation than the 18- to 25-year-old demographic, proving that this kind of reform works.
Finally, this bill seeks to update our archaic electoral practices that say you are not allowed to participate on election day if you have not updated your details on the electoral roll. It is 2018, and we should be flexible enough in our system to allow people to do so at a polling place on polling day.
It is time to lower the voting age to 16 in Australia and show our young people that we here in this place hear them, that we care about their opinions and that we are working for their future. I thank the chamber for its time.
I rise to speak on this issue and to thank Senator Steele-John for the opportunity to speak to him earlier today about this bill and his cooperation in some of the things that we are planning to do to advance the particular proposal that the Greens have brought forward to the chamber. I did indicate to Senator Steele-John that we did have some concerns about the way in which the legislation was introduced into the parliament only a few days ago. When we come to consider something as significant as this particular change, from the Labor Party's point of view, we would have preferred more time to consider the implications of the legislation. More particularly, we would have preferred—as you would know, Acting Deputy President Gallacher—to go through all of the appropriate party processes that are required to settle on a particular course of action within the Labor Party.
I'm pleased that, in having some discussions with Senator Steele-John, we've reached agreement that—and I think the government supports this position—the issues that are addressed in this bill should be given full and proper consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That is the appropriate committee, as it deals with these sorts of issues, and it's an opportunity for the committee to look at the proposals in finer detail, rather than for us to be required to vote on the issue after only having seen the bill a few days ago and without what I would consider to be more detailed consideration.
It's important to say that the Australian Labor Party has a proud history of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise. It was the Labor government in 2012 who introduced automatic enrolment provisions, extending the right to vote to thousands of disenfranchised voters across the country. Similarly, prior to the last election, the Labor Party announced a broad strategy to engage young Australians in the political system and to empower them to drive and guide change. There are a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds who work, pay tax, earn penalty rates, drive on our roads and use public services. We owe it to them to give respectful consideration to this, and we're happy to have that conversation.
At the time of announcing the 2016 election policy, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, committed that an incoming Labor government would consult on the issue appropriately prior to recommending a change in the legislative provisions. It is still our belief that this important and substantial issue, which carries with it significant implications, requires appropriate consultation. Therefore, it is not adequate to simply debate legislation without a considered review process. It is the Labor opposition's position that we strongly recommend that the issues canvassed in the Greens' bill be referred to the committee for review, specifically to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It's extremely important that we engage young Australians. It has probably never more important than it is right now, when we have a government that has declared war on young people. This bill has a number of facets that each deserve to be discussed, consulted on and investigated in a thorough way. It's for this purpose that we believe that the JSCEM committee is the appropriate one for the review.
Turning to the Greens bill itself, the bill seeks to do three main things: lower the voting age in Australia from 18, as it is currently, to 16; introduce voluntary voting for 16- and 17-year-olds; and introduce election day enrolment for all Australians. It also seeks to lower the enrolment age from 16 to 14. Each of those provisions potentially has significant implications for our electoral system, and, as such, should be considered carefully through an informed review process. Debating them here today at very short notice does not do justice to the importance of engaging with young Australians and, more broadly, the extension of the electoral franchise in this country.
We're here today to talk about the bill that the Greens have put forward, and there are a number of issues that I think we need to explore. The Future of Australian Governance stream at the Australia 2020 Summit called for optional enrolment to vote and voting to be introduced for Australians aged 16-18 years. The communique from the Australia 2020 Youth Summit in 2008 recommended:
To build a more participatory 2020, the age at which people are eligible to vote must be lowered to 16. Sixteen-year-olds work, pay income tax, pay GST, drive, and can join the army. They must be enfranchised so they can have a say in Government policies that affect them.
Those are some of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of lowering the voting age in some way. Others include: that youth have a substantial enough stake in the nation's governance to justify being given a voice in how the nation is governed; that 16- and 17-year-olds are sufficiently mature and sufficiently educated to vote; and that a reduced voting age could improve the relevance and, hence, effectiveness of existing civic education programs and lead to more political engagement and participation.
There have, of course, also been several arguments advanced against the idea of lowering the voting age. Those arguments include: that the public do not support lowering the voting age; that, internationally, very few countries have lowered the voting age beyond the age of 18; that youth may have insufficient maturity or life experience to vote; and that some young people show high levels of apathy about politics.
There are, of course, numerous ways in which Australia could seek to enfranchise youth. Various proposals and ideas exist, and no doubt there are aspects of other models that are worthy of investigation through an appropriate review of this bill. Some of those alternatives have included: compulsory voting to be extended to 16- or 17-year-olds; 16- or 17-year-olds be permitted to vote on a voluntary basis; voluntary enrolment for 16- and 17-year-olds, with voting to be compulsory for those who are enrolled; the right to vote at 16 or 17 be for those who are exercising or affected by other rights and responsibilities, such as joining the armed forces, working full time or paying tax; or different voting ages for different levels of government like in Germany and Italy, where the voting age is lower for local elections than for national elections.
I'd like to make some comments about the issue of voluntary voting. The idea of introducing an element of voluntary voting to Australia's electoral system is one that definitely needs to be very carefully considered. Even if voluntary voting were to only be made available to 16- and 17-year-olds, it would have the potential to significantly impact on our electoral system. The transition from voluntary voting as a 16- or 17-year-old to compulsory voting at 18 years of age has the potential to introduce confusion. We know that, even without lowering the voting age, there are a number of young Australians who, for various reasons, are not enrolled to vote. There are also a number who are enrolled but do not exercise their right to vote. To introduce a voluntary lead-in could exacerbate this. Again, the complexities of this particular aspect of what the Greens are proposing require serious consideration, which would be best achieved by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
There's also the issue of election day enrolment. That's another issue which I think needs some attention, as I've indicated to Senator Steele-John. One idea is enrolment on election day. As I mentioned earlier, Labor have a proud history of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise, which is why we introduced automatic enrolment provisions in 2012. Election day enrolment in some US states and in Canada usually requires electors to provide a prescribed proof of identity document to the staff to establish their eligibility before being registered and allowed to vote. For example, in Minnesota, which introduced election day registration in 1973, eligible electors who have not registered by the close of registration, which is 21 days before the election day, are required to appear in person at the polling place for the precinct in which they reside, complete an application to register, make an oath in the prescribed form and provide proof of residence.
Arguments advanced in favour of election day enrolment in those places that use it have included increased voter turnout and reduced barriers to electoral participation. However, Australia's compulsory voting system means that we generally have higher voter turnout, and Labor's automatic enrolment forms have already significantly reduced barriers to electoral participation. Those arguments for election day enrolment are probably less relevant here in Australia. Arguments against election day enrolment in jurisdictions that allow it have concluded that it does not allow sufficient scrutiny of the voter's credentials, that it might allow people to cast multiple votes at different polling places and that a lack of voter interest and motivation are more significant barriers to participation than enrolment requirements.
In Australia, arguments against election day enrolment might include that one of the key benefits of the present system is that the qualifications of a person seeking to enrol are tested and verified in a structured way in advance of polling day. Election day enrolment would significantly impact on the efficiency of the polling process, with a greater number of voters having to fill out a greater number of forms at the polling booth. That complexity in determining a person's qualifications might make it necessary for some people to cast a declaration vote, which would have implications for the speed at which the election result could be finalised. Also, it could result in an overreliance on election day of electors enrolling or updating their enrolment details rather than updating their details when their address changes.
The resources that are required to facilitate election day enrolment must also be considered. Elections already require a huge nationwide deployment of significant resources at significant expense to the taxpayer. Introducing additional processes which will require additional resources and additional funding should not be contemplated without detailed research into the potential costs and other resourcing requirements.
Our parliament makes decisions that have incredibly important implications for the future of our nation, decisions that shape the future for all Australians. It is, of course, our young people who will live that future and so we have a great responsibility to carefully consider matters that will have an impact on young Australians as we deliberate on and debate policies in this place. Labor have always and will always seek to engage with young people on their hopes, dreams and visions for the future of Australia, because we understand it is their future. That's why it's important that we engage young people with democracy and encourage and empower them to understand that their voice counts too. We listen, but, sadly for young Australians, all too often their voices fall on deaf ears when it comes to the government in this country.
We've seen on a regular basis the appalling disconnect between the Turnbull government and young Australians. We've seen the $17 billion that Malcolm Turnbull is slashing from our schools—$17 billion denied to Australian schoolchildren just so Malcolm Turnbull can give his big business buddies and the banks a tax handout. Labor will restore every dollar of that $17 billion that Mr Turnbull has cut from schools. We will always put schools and services before banks. We've seen the Turnbull government's complete disregard for young Australians in its $2.2 billion cut to university funding. Everything that Malcolm Turnbull does makes it harder for Australians to go to university. These cuts mean that fees will go up, and they effectively cap the number of places. Malcolm Turnbull went to university for free to get his law degree but now thinks too many kids do law, and wants those that do to pay more for it. He will do anything to protect what he thinks should be an exclusive club for the rich. This government has also slashed about $3 billion in recent years from TAFE and apprenticeship funding. They're spending billions of dollars less on schools and university education, ensuring that fewer young Australians can go to university at a time when they're slashing billions from other forms of postsecondary education and vocational training. Labor understands the importance of educational opportunities for young Australians. That's why we'll conduct a national postsecondary school inquiry.
This government has presided over a penalty rate cut for hundreds of thousands of Australian workers, many of them young people trying to pay their way through university, which is only going to be more expensive thanks to the Liberal cuts. Millionaire Malcolm Turnbull thinks the answer to housing affordability issues—another matter that is particularly pressing for many young Australians—is for their parents to shell out and buy them a house. No doubt he can afford to do that, but most Australian parents can't, and most young Australians know that. That's the point at the heart of why Labor is and has always been acutely aware of how important it is that we engage with and represent young Australians. The alternative for young Australians is an arrogant, out-of-touch Liberal Prime Minister who is more interested in giving billions of dollars to big business and big banks than he is in helping young Australians get a quality education, find a good job and be able to afford a house.
Senator Farrell has just offered no real position from the opposition on the issues raised by the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 and has instead decided to spend his time sledging the government on a range of matters not truly raised by the bill itself.
Point of order?
I have offered a very direct position in respect of this matter: the reference to JSCEM.
There is no point of order.
I'm going to afford this chamber the respect of dealing with the issues raised by the bill. Senator Steele-John's proposals are well intentioned. The desire to engage young people with democracy is exceptionally important. It is a principle the government supports wholeheartedly, and it's why we see so much support from the government for the programs already in place to raise the profile of civics in the education system. It is an important part of the curriculum that is taught within Australian schools. The AEC's National Electoral Education Centre at Old Parliament House provides face-to-face education programs for about 90,000 students each year. There is the Democracy Rules resource provided by the government, also through the AEC, to help with education on these issues. The ABC provides a wonderful resource, with materials for primary and secondary educators to use, to share the story and the rules of democracy with young people. The AEC provides classroom resources and student education, and the Museum of Australian Democracy hosts thousands of students a year, not to mention the many schoolchildren who come through this parliament every day, learning about the electoral system. There's the National Indigenous Youth Parliament, hosted by the AEC to help improve electoral participation by young Indigenous people. All of these programs have in their heart the importance of engaging young people with democracy.
But, if we look at what is proposed by this bill, we need to ask quite sincerely whether or not it is going to achieve that important end, and it doesn't. Let's start with some of the data. A study that was conducted on behalf of the ACT Legislative Assembly in 2007, released in September, researched the level of interest of young people in a lowering of the age of receiving the franchise. It observed that, when young people are first entitled to enrol to vote, which is at the age of 17—that doesn't give them the vote, of course; it just gives them the opportunity to join the roll in preparation for their ability to vote at the age of 18—only 27 per cent of young people seize that opportunity. Now, it is an optional measure at that age, and that does affect the data. We must take that into account and look at it fairly. That study noted that the Democratic Audit of Australia saw that there was no clear demand evident from young people for a lowering of the voting age to 16 and that young people do not seem to consider the franchise to be among their top priorities at present.
If we turn to some of the other research that's been conducted on this subject, in the study by Professor Ian McAllister in The politics of lowering the voting age in Australia: evaluating the evidence, the arguments for and against the lowering of the voting age were canvassed and, importantly, data examining the support in the community and among young people for such a measure was given some scrutiny. We start with this: among the voting population as a whole, what appetite was there for the lowering of the voting age? Well, three per cent of voters thought it would be worthwhile to lower the voting age to 16, and a further three per cent were softer on that point. They thought it probably would be worth lowering the voting age to 16. That contrasts with 22 per cent of people believing that it should probably stay at 18 and 72 per cent of people saying it definitely should stay at the age of 18.
We need to examine the reasons behind those strongly held views in the Australian community. Arguments about equity were front of mind the last time the issue of whether or not to lower the voting age in Australia came to the fore—and, of course, resulted in the lowering of the voting age to 18. In that circumstance, there was the historical context of many young Australians having gone to war and fought at ages younger than that at which they would have been able to vote. Similar equity arguments have been made to justify lowering the voting age now to 16.
Let's look at some of those comparative measures. In Australia, the age of appearing in an adult court, the age at which one is regarded as criminally responsible as an adult in most circumstances, and the age at which one is free to marry without requiring any special permissions are 18 in almost all circumstances. There are some other government regulated activities that have a lower minimum age. One can obtain a driver's licence earlier, and one can seek to engage in some military service at 17. There are very few activities which have a minimum age of 16, with the exception of the age of consent and, in some circumstances, the holding of a firearms licence. So there really isn't the same weight behind the equity argument at present.
If we look to the argument that suggests it might enhance political participation, the evidence doesn't really support the proposition that political participation by young people would be enhanced by such a measure. If we compare it to countries with voluntary voting—and I note that that's slightly different to Australia's circumstances—there are arguments to suggest that lowering the age will increase voter turnout, because the earlier in life one forms the habit of voting, taking an interest in the electoral process, the more likely it is that that habit will continue throughout life. But none of the voter turnout information from those other jurisdictions supports that proposition. A study of 324 national elections across 91 countries shows that, when everything is equal, turnout is reduced by almost two points every time the voting age is lowered by one year. So, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18: reduced turnout by five percentage points. That is supported by studies by Blais, Dobrzynska and Franklin—all of those analysed in Professor McAllister's report. All of that indicates that political participation would not be enhanced simply by a measure to reduce the voting age. In every jurisdiction where that proposition has been tested it has failed.
Of course, a turnout test is not a perfect analogue for the Australian system, because we have a system of compulsory voting. But we can model the effects of age on electoral participation by using a question that has been asked of young people: whether they would vote if it were voluntary. Again, those surveys demonstrate that the opportunity simply would not be seized by any significant proportion of young people. So we need to find other ways to make sure we are consistently and effectively engaging people in the democratic process from a young age so that they are ready to seize the opportunity to vote and to do so with enthusiasm when they reach the age of 18.
The government doesn't support lowering the age at which one begins to vote from 18 to 16, simply because the evidence does not support the idea that it would enhance participation by younger people. Given that 18 is the age at which a person is considered to be an adult in Australia and it's a legal age for the purposes I've already identified—but also the age at which one can conduct other matters of responsibility, like purchasing alcohol, engaging in gambling and becoming a company director—it is consistent to maintain the voting age at 18. When one enrols in the Australian Defence Forces at an age younger than 18 they can do it only subject to special conditions, and it must be approved by a parent or guardian, to reflect the fact that that person, despite the honour of their intention to serve their country, is still of a young age and is still developing maturity.
The same principle stands behind the requirement that one obtain permission to marry between the ages of 16 and 18. The same principle stands behind the limitation on criminal responsibility of young people until they reach the age of 18. They are not treated as adults before the courts until they reach that point. When aged under 18, a person has a limited ability to enter into contracts—and, in the narrow circumstances in which they can, they're afforded additional legal protections, because they have not yet reached the stage at which they are expected to have the maturity to take full responsibility for those decisions. The good news is that younger Australians do have some outstanding opportunities to engage with the political process and to participate in important national debates should they wish to. And they do have the opportunity to join political parties and political activity groups so that they can start to have their say in the process if that's their desire. For all of those reasons, the government maintains that 18 is the appropriate age at which a young person should gain the opportunity and the responsibility to vote in Australian elections.
There is a second component to the bill that is before this chamber. That is that the arrangements for the close of rolls should be changed to allow a person to update their enrolment or make their enrolment right up to and on the day of an election. The government supports the existing arrangements in place for the close of rolls. They close at 8.00 pm on the seventh day after the date of the issue of the writ. The suspension period between the close of rolls and polling day has been a really important part of Australian electoral law since federation, and that's for good reasons. It ensures the orderly and efficient conduct of elections. It ensures that there is accuracy, integrity and certainty in the electoral rolls produced for polling day. It minimises voter fraud by having a settled and verified roll in place in advance of polling day. Very importantly, given the volumes of people who poll on election day, it ensures that there aren't delays both at polling booths and in the declaration of results following election day.
Of course, technology has made it so much easier for voters to enrol or update their enrolment. There are information campaigns run by the AEC around election time to ensure there is an awareness of the responsibility to enrol, and internet-based means of enrolling and updating enrolments have made it much easier for citizens to discharge these responsibilities. The AEC has worked with ABC's triple j on the Rock Enrol campaigns to ensure that young voters are particularly targeted in the efforts to ensure enrolment occurs in the lead-up to elections. All of these are targeted measures designed to ensure that young people who have reached the age of 18 have a maximum presence when it comes to electoral processes.
Another reason that the government does not support the bill that is before the chamber is that it appears that none of the changes proposed by the bill have been costed. It does also appear that the implementation of the changes, and ensuring that there was public awareness of them, would impose additional burdens on the AEC that could be expected to have additional cost.
For all of those reasons, the bill that is before the chamber is not supported by the government. That said, the government remains steadfast in its support of young people's education in the importance of democratic processes and the making available of resources for teachers and citizens to be able to find out all they need about the democratic process. We remain extremely enthusiastic about the role that young people play in democracy from the moment at which they seize the right to be able to vote in elections at the age of 18.
Senator Rice has the call. Sorry, just take a seat, Senator Rice. Senator Farrell, on a point of order?
Yes. I don't want to interrupt Senator Rice unduly, but I've just been advised that BuzzFeed is reporting that in my speech I allegedly opposed this bill. I just want to make it very clear that I didn't seek to oppose the bill.
There will be time at end of proceedings to make personal statements.
I understand, but I thought given the nature of social media—
You will need to seek leave to do that.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I want to make it very clear that the reports on BuzzFeed are completely inaccurate. The Labor Party is not opposing this bill. I went through all of the arguments in favour and against as part of my summary, and we've made it very clear that we want a full and proper investigation into the bill. We have proposed to do that, with the support of the Greens, through the JSCEM process. I would request, to the extent that it's possible, to get the record corrected by BuzzFeed and that they do so as quickly as possible.
I'm pleased to hear that we have the support of Labor for this important bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018. I am absolutely so pleased to be standing up here speaking in support of the Greens bill for lowering the voting age and increasing voter participation, because we have a huge democratic deficit here in our parliament. If you look around at the people who are representing Australians in the Senate today, they are overwhelmingly older people. I am one of the younger people here. They are overwhelmingly male. They are overwhelmingly white. We need to be doing everything we can to be increasing the diversity in our parliament, whether it's through younger people, females or people of different cultural backgrounds. This bill is critically important for increasing that engagement with politics for young people and, in fact, all people. The measures that are in the bill to allow voters to enrol on the day of an election and to update their details on the day of an election are just as important as the measures to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.
Before I go into some of the reasons as to why the Greens think that this is incredibly important action to be taking, I want to respond to some of the issues and concerns raised by the Labor Party and the government. I was pleased to hear Senator Farrell's clarification that Labor are supporting this bill—
We proposed the reference.
Order, Senator Farrell! You had your chance. There is time at the end of the proceedings.
I won't try to verbal you, Senator Farrell. I'm pleased to hear the Labor Party is supporting the reference of this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In fact, the Greens are very keen for this bill to have a full inquiry into it, because we believe in democracy. We believe in hearing lots of voices. We want to hear all of the arguments being put. Frankly, by referring the bill we're going to get much more substance and many more of the actual reasons as to why this bill is a sensible way to go than in some of the arguments that have been put here this afternoon—in particular, the arguments that were put forward by Senator Stoker.
Firstly, most of her debating points cherrypicked tiny bits of data. I suppose I shouldn't really have been surprised. It is what the government has been doing all week and all month on the debate over the tax cuts—trying to mislead the community with a very warped, cherrypicked version of reality and trying to argue that having tax cuts that are worth $144 billion aren't going to impact on services, for example, for young people. It's completely false.
Secondly, it was very interesting to note that most of Senator Stoker's arguments came from some research that was undertaken in 2007. I think it's very pertinent to note, when we are talking about the engagement of young people, that that was 11 years ago. In fact, in 2007 Senator Steele-John, who is here with us today, was 13 years old! A lot has happened since 2007 in this space around the world. So relying on research that was undertaken in 2007 is not giving us an accurate understanding of the latest research globally into the importance of allowing young people to vote. In particular, the other study that she was quoting, the McAllister study, was undertaken before there had been two significant changes in voting age in other jurisdictions around the world—in Austria and particularly in Scotland.
In Scotland, when they introduced optional voting for 16- and 17-year-olds in the Scottish referendum they had an 80 per cent turnout. Despite it being voluntary—and, in fact, despite Scottish voting being voluntary overall—they had an 80 per cent turnout of 16- and 17-year-olds in that referendum. There was so much support for voting by Scottish young people that they are now looking at making it a feature of their general elections. So I think that is an incredibly valuable piece of research which Senator Stoker omitted to share with the Senate here today.
Young people: they pay taxes, they own and drive cars, they make decisions about their own bodies and, as we've been told, they can join political parties, including the Liberal Party. They can make decisions on Liberal Party policy, or at least have input into Liberal Party policy—not that I think that current Liberal Party policy on a whole range of issues, particularly increasing inequality, privatising the ABC and things like that, probably had much input from young people for those decisions.
Basically, we know that young people are keen to be involved. They are thoughtful, and the key issue, I think, as to why there is so much resistance to having 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote is that they have not yet been weighed down by cynicism, not yet weighed down by this sense that, 'Oh well, we can't change anything, so we'll not engage with the political process.' The young people that I know—and in fact I know many young people who are involved with the Greens; they have done work experience with me—are as active and engaged in politics as anybody in our society, and they really don't understand and have this immense sense of frustration about why they aren't able to be involved in the political process of voting. They know that the decisions that are being made are going to affect their lives.
In fact, there is much more justification for young people being able to vote—not that I would say that people at the very end of their lives shouldn't be able to vote—in terms of having that view forward and of thinking about the future. The rationale for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to make decisions, to be involved and to have representation on decisions that are going to deeply affect their lives is overwhelming.
And we need to have their voices here. We need to have their voices in our parliaments, we need to have their voices as voters, and, by having that engagement, we need to encourage more people to stand for election and be involved in political processes so that we can improve the diversity here. There are so many strong reasons as to why that engagement and getting that political engagement happening at 16 and 17 is effective. A key thing is that people are engaging with these issues of politics when they are at school in years 9, 10, 11 and 12. That is the time when they are building their understanding about the world, and we could have a system where you've got kids in years 10, 11 and 12 not only learning about the world but actually then having the opportunity to enrol to vote. Senator Stoker told us about the low enrolment of people when they turn 18. We would be able to increase the enrolment to vote much more substantially if, when they were studying the issues of the day—whether climate change or marriage equality or poverty—they could be saying, 'Hey, I've got the opportunity to have a say and do something about this.' Enrol-to-vote forms could be available at schools for young people to fill out.
As part of that engagement, people would be discussing elections. Imagine if you were a year 10 student studying politics or science—or the whole curriculum—in the lead-up to the next federal election. That is a wonderful way of actually engaging people: 'Hey, not only am I concerned about learning about these things, but I can actually act on them, I can get involved in the political process, I can enrol to vote and I can vote!' Then they can look forward to actually seeing representatives truly represent them in the parliament. We know that when people are passionate and engaged and are given that opportunity and the sense of empowerment that they can be involved and can help change things, they act.
The postal survey on marriage equality last year was not the right way to make the decision on marriage equality. It was a horrible, hateful process that we shouldn't have been put through, but we know that the turnout of young people who wanted to have their say on that was amazing. There were 100,000 new voters who'd gone on the electoral roll because they had that sense of empowerment. Here was something that they really could act on. People who had been disengaged from the political process up until then enrolled to vote, and they went out there and had their say in the postal survey because they knew that the issue of marriage equality was something that they cared about, were passionate about and wanted to see changed in Australia as part of creating a fairer, more just society.
I have had two young people in my life, my two sons, who are now well above that 16- and 17-year-old age, but it's not that long ago. I remember having conversations around the dining room table with them and their friends about the issues of climate change and their sense that they wanted to be able to act. Young people are now involved with wonderful organisations like the Australian Youth Climate Coalition because they want to be able to have a say. They should be able to vote. They have just as much of a valid point of view and a perspective that needs to be represented on these issues as other people.
It is not just some 16- and 17-year-olds who are feeling cynical and disengaged and not involved in politics. We are told that they don't want to vote or they won't be engaged. As well as the 16- and 17-year-olds, I know 26-year-olds, 36-year-olds, 46-year-olds and people right up to 76-year-old who are equally disengaged. Yes, we need to be working out how to engage all of them. But there is such a strong reason—given that 16- and 17-year-olds are paying taxes and that it is their society that we are making decisions on—that they should be enfranchised to be able to have a say.
Critically, those issues are ones that they feel very deeply. If you're a 16-year-old and you're looking at the issues of dangerous climate change, you know that by the time you are the age of those of us here in the Senate, by the time you are 40 or 50, the impacts are going to be very real and we are going to have gone way past the two degrees of warming which current government policy is heading us towards. Current government policy is going to head us to three, four or more degrees of warming within the lifetime of young people. So they ought to be able to have a say on that. They ought to be able to have a say as to whether it's right that the Great Barrier Reef should die, that agricultural production in this country is going to dive and that our wheat-growing areas—say, around Dubbo—are going to have the growing conditions and climate of the central deserts. Young people who are 16 or 17 care about this. They also care about and deserve to have a say about the future of the natural environments. I have had the great privilege of being able to see wonderful old forest and wonderful animals like Leadbeater's possums, greater gliders and powerful owls, and to experience all of that incredible diversity of our natural environment. Within the decades in the future of a 16-year-old, sadly, that may not be the case for them on the current trajectory that we're on.
I think it is critical, given the outlook over the lifetimes of young people in our society today, that they deserve to be enfranchised and to be able to have a say, be empowered, be involved and take part in our democracy. Doing so—having their voices in our democratic system and having that greater diversity—means we're going to end up with much better outcomes by involving the voices of young people, just like involving the voices of people of great cultural diversity and the voices of women, including women who have children. In saying that, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, whose baby girl has just been born. What a wonderful thing to be having that sort of diversity in our parliaments—having the diversity of a huge range of Australian society represented here in our parliament. Lowering the voting age, having optional voting for 16 and 17-year-olds, is a really important factor. It's a really important and powerful lever in building towards a more participatory democracy to have greater involvement of a greater range of people in our democracy. To be giving people, whether it's a 16-year-old or a 66-year-old, the sense that they can be involved, they can vote and they can be represented is important, and that the decisions that our parliaments make are going to be taking the issues of the future, having the outlook, being concerned about a future for all Australians and working for an overall fairer, more caring and more sustainable Australia.
I rise today to speak on the bill introduced to this place by our parliamentary colleague from WA Senator Steele-John. Senator Steel-John's bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018, proposes a suite of very well-meaning but misguided measures. Senator Steele-John seeks first to lower the minimum age of a voter in Australian federal elections and referenda from 18 to 16 years of age. However, the bill maintains the minimum age of compulsory voting and eligibility to stand as a federal parliamentarian at 18 years of age.
I am genuinely heartened to know that Senator Steele-John as our youngest senator understands the importance of engaging young people in the political process. I too share his passion for nurturing young people who are politically minded. I too recognise that we in parliament ignore young people at our peril. That does not, however, mean that we need to lower the compulsory voting age.
Senator Steele-John is turning 24 this year, am I right?—
Senator Steele-John interjecting—
I understand that he is far closer to the eligible voting age that he is proposing than I am—no matter what I look like! Nevertheless, I would put to Senator Steele-John that, despite being nearly double his age, my rickety old 47-year-old self probably has far more exposure in my everyday life to the lives, the hopes, the dreams and the fears of 16-year-olds than Senator Steele-John does, because my life resolves around a 16-year-old.
I would like to at least verbally introduce the chamber to my eldest son, Harry, who is 16 years old. If Senator Steele-John has his way, my Harry will be given the right to vote. Harry is a terrific kid and I am very, very proud of him. If props were allowed in the Senate chamber I would be showing you photographs right now from when he was a baby right through to the age of 16. He was a beautiful, happy and easygoing baby. He was a charming and gentle toddler. He was a very enthusiastic and popular child. Now he is a teenager and adolescence is a role to which he has taken like a duck to water. While he's not eating he is, in fact, just staring into the fridge. He has a life within his telephone that I could not ever possibly fully understand. He has a cupboard full of clothes and yet he wears the same thing every single day, and most of the time it involves a pair of sports shorts even when it's practically snowing outside. He is no longer the chatterbox of his childhood. In fact, 16-year-old Harry is the master of the monosyllable, although sometimes on a good day I do get a full sentence.
I'm sounding very harsh on him, but I actually I'm a very, very proud mother and I'm very proud of the man that he is growing into. Harry is a hero to his younger brother and his younger sister. He has an innate kindness and gentleness that shines through him when he is with his two young nephews. He is clearly aware of his emerging responsibility and his strength, and that is fully evident when he is with his grandparents, who love him fiercely and unconditionally. He is a keen and talented sportsman, whether it be rowing, football or tennis. He is lithe and graceful whether he is on the water or on the field. He is also an artist. He is quite the athlete and a perfectionist. He has an eye for detail and a rare sense of perspective for someone so young. He is popular and he has a lovely group of friends, which increasingly seems to include very attractive, happy and confident girls—I'm not sure how I feel about that just yet! It's understandable though, and I do speak with a mother's bias, because he is emerging from those gormless and awkward years of puberty as a very handsome young man—although, I'd just love him to cut his hair! For a 16-year-old he has a terrific sense of humour, and even as recently as a week ago he had me laughing so hard that tears were rolling down my face.
He is doing very well at school. He's not a naturally studious kid—I'll put that out there. Most of the time he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to his homework, but he's naturally curious and sometimes piercingly insightful. He's regularly stubbornly opinionated, most often about issues he knows very little about or that he's learnt about from Instagram or YouTube.
Harry studies politics at high school. It's a comprehensive course and it includes many facets of Australian and global politics. He's currently studying ideas, actors and power in politics. I did actually speak to his politics teacher this morning to find out exactly what it was that he was engaging in right now. So he has been introduced to the political spectrum—the Left and the Right—the radical views of all sides; political systems, including Liberal democracy, socialism, fascism, authoritarianism and theocracy; and the characteristics of the Australian political system. He is currently investigating a case study of a non-democratic system to compare and contrast the ways that political systems operate, to develop a much deeper understanding of the Australian democracy in a global setting. This is truly preparing Harry for his voting life. It's giving him a deep understanding of our systems and politics at play.
Despite being a wonderful young person with his own unique perspectives and opinions, despite learning about our political system, our democracy and its alternatives, despite being brought up in a house where politics is part of life and the inevitable topic of conversation, and despite having a mother who is a politician herself, Harry is not ready to vote. At 16-years-old there are still so many aspect of life that he is yet to experience and so many that he's simply not ready for. Either by the laws of our land or as a matter of simple maturity and judgement, there are so many parts of adult life that a 16-year-old cannot do. A 16-year-old is not ready to marry. He's not ready to serve in the military. He's not ready for unvetted access to alcohol, although he gives it a good crack occasionally, I think. He's not ready for unvetted access to gambling. He's not ready for a credit card. He's not ready to sign a contract. He's not ready for a full driver's licence. He's not ready to enter licensed venues. He's not ready to donate blood without permission. He's not ready to rent a house. He's not ready to purchase a house. He's not ready to get a tattoo or a piercing. He's not ready to go skydiving. He's not ready to even buy a pet. He's not ready for jury duty. The list could go on and on and on. However, just because young people are not ready to vote or are not able to vote, that does not for one second mean that young people are not well represented in this place, because young people are represented. They're represented here every single day.
As every member of parliament will attest, just because I don't look like you or I don't live your life experience every day does not mean I cannot do my utmost to walk a mile in your shoes and represent your interests. At least everyone in this place can say they were 16-years-old once. Moreover, what more could these people under 18 want from having a vote in this place that they haven't already got? What voice do they not already have? If it's climate change that they're passionate about, as Senator Rice attested, there are certainly members of this place that are there ready for them. If it's STEM and technology that they're interested in, again, there are members in this place that are there fighting for those interests already. If it is tax relief for those who need it the most that they are most interested in—I'd be surprised if that was their foremost interest, but if that was it—I can assure them that there are many members on this side of the chamber that are very keen to see that happen. We're happy to voice that opinion for them. Just because you're 16 or 17 years of age, it does not mean you don't have a voice; it just means you're not quite ready to vote.
This is not a new debate. A 2012 report entitled The Politics of lowering the voting age in Australia: evaluating the evidencehas already been cited in this chamber this evening. The findings in the report suggest:
… that there is only partial support for lowering the voting age in order to bring it into line with other government-regulated activities.
That report said:
There is no evidence that lowering the voting age would increase political participation; indeed, the evidence points in the opposite direction. And despite the rapid expansion of university education, young people—
apparently—
are no more politically knowledgeable today than they were in the past.
The arguments for lowering the voting age simply don't stack up to empirical scrutiny.
So will allowing 16- or 17-year-olds a vote enhance political participation? There is an argument to suggest that in those countries that have voluntary voting, lowering the voting age will increase the voter turnout, that it establishes a habit of a lifetime and that the habit will be more likely to create an interest that will continue throughout their lives. Particularly as voter turnout has declined across all established democracies, one way of arresting that decline might be to introduce a lower voting age. However, that argument also does not stack up. It is simply not supported by the evidence. Many have shown, in fact, that turnout increases with age, so, all other things being equal, turnout should be higher if the minimum voting age is in fact 21.
It's interesting that Senator Rice referred before to the postal plebiscite and how we had an extraordinary turnout of young people in the postal plebiscite last year. That is absolutely true. It was a terrific voter turnout. However, what Senator Rice failed to mention is that the voter turnout in this non-compulsory plebiscite was in fact much higher for people over the age of 40 than it was for the people between the ages of 18 and 30. So that argument simply does not stack up. It's terrific to have more young voters on our roll. It's terrific to have more young voters participating in our democracy. But I don't think that it is going to establish a voter pattern of a lifetime.
In studies of national elections across 91 countries it was found that, everything else being equal, turnout is in fact reduced by almost two points when the voting age is lowered by one year. That potentially would suggest lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 reduces turnout by around five percentage points, so the argument simply does not wash.
Furthermore, the Australian public is strongly opposed to lowering the voting age. In 2010 an Australian election study found that a whopping 94 per cent of respondents were opposed to any change to the age of voting eligibility and 72 per cent said the age should definitely stay at 18. If anything, the Australian public opinion is emphatically opposed to lowering the age that is found elsewhere. In fact, overall, just six per cent of the electorate favoured any change at all. In keeping with public sentiment, in 2007 the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters rejected the proposal to lower the voting age. This is not a new debate. We've had this debate before.
It made perfect sense back in 1974 to change the eligible voting age to 18. When that change was made 43 years ago, it was bipartisan in nature and, on the matter of the principle of the legislation, both sides agreed. By lowering the age requirement from 21 to 18, the voting age became aligned with the age at which one becomes an adult in the eyes of the courts and the law. It is also the age at which we allow Australians to engage in other activities which require physical, emotional and intellectual development. We trust people at the age of 18 to be mature enough to get married. We allow them to engage in potentially dangerous activities like drinking and gambling. Even the brightest of young Australians cannot be a company director until they are the age of 18. In general, the Australian law recognises that individuals 18 and over have full legal capacity.
Under 18, people are generally considered minors and restricted in their autonomy and decision-making. For example, they can't serve in the Australian Defence Force if they are under the age of 18, subject to very special conditions, and potentially any participation must be approved in writing by parents or legal guardians. Those under the age of 18 attending school excursions or programs must receive written consent by parents or legal guardians. At one stage today, when I was talking to Harry's politics teacher, I said that maybe I could mention a couple of other kids in the class, but, no, I couldn't do that. I can't even mention the name of a child under the age of 18 in the Senate chamber to put on the Hansard transcript without the parents' permission. These kids are minors; it's important to remember that.
Just because those under 18 are not able to vote does not mean we don't want them politically engaged, and there are of opportunities to do so. Of course, the best example of that is the Liberal Party!
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
Why do I hear laughter!
When the Liberal Party was founded by Sir Robert Menzies in 1944, the role of the Young Liberal Movement was so important. It was a key priority and a pillar of the party's formation. I'm not talking about shrill student protests or activism on university campuses but about meaningful policy contributions flowing to the most senior ranks of the party. Young voices can, in the right party, be taken very seriously.
Outside of the party system there are other fora too. In my home state of Victoria, opportunities for youth political engagement abound. One example is the brilliant Victorian Youth Parliament, where every year over 150 young people aged between 16 and 25 from metropolitan areas, the suburbs, and regional and rural Victoria all come together for a week to debate the issues that are important to them in the houses of parliament of Victoria. The Youth Parliament doesn't stop at debate; participants gain an understanding of political history, why we have the systems that we have and what democracy is.
Another, more global, example is the UN youth summit program. In fact, UN Youth Australia is one of Australia's largest youth-led organisations. There is the National Schools Constitutional Convention and the National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values, which is now in its 22nd year. If a person below the age of 18 is seeking political engagement—the opportunity to be heard, to meet like minds and to test their arguments—there are fora such as these where they can do just that. When young participants do cast their vote for the first time at the ballot box, they can do so knowing that their opinions have been tested.
I do briefly want to draw the chamber's attention to the issues that are addressed in schedule 2 of the bill before us, which provides that Australians who are eligible to vote but who are not yet on the electoral roll or are not enrolled at their correct address can enrol to vote or update their address at a polling centre on election day, or at an early voting centre, and will be deemed to be enrolled at that address and eligible to cast a provisional vote at that time. This suggestion demonstrates a genuine absence of understanding of the administrative and logistical difficulties that are attendant on conducting an election. Our staff at the Australian Electoral Commission have a mammoth task in organising and administering an election in itself, as well as in reconciling the voting records after votes are cast. Perhaps it is Senator Steele-John's youthful enthusiasm—or perhaps it is simply his party affiliation—that renders him unencumbered by the practical concerns of government. However—
Ooh!
Ooh-hoo! Did you like that? However, it is no small task to add voters to the electoral roll, for it involves cross-checking many layers of data across multiple agencies. Enrolment currently is not done in real time because of the associated administrative burden. The administrative costs and the inconvenience to other voters already waiting in very, very long lines to fulfil their democratic duty would be simply too great. Enrolling even a small number of voters on election day, the best-case scenario for the AEC under Senator Steele-John's proposition, would place a completely unnecessary administrative and fiscal burden on the Australian Electoral Commission and other government agencies.
In the couple of minutes I have left, I would like to return to one of the most precious things in my life, my 16-year-old son, Harry, the master of the monosyllable. Despite a very worthwhile discussion, Senator Steele-John, for which I am very grateful and thank you sincerely, I do think that the chamber will eventually agree that my Harry, darling Harry, should not be allowed to vote. But I don't think Harry and his peers should be concerned with that outcome, because his voice and the voices of his generation, their needs and their futures are foremost in the minds of everybody here. I believe that what young Australians need most is not the eligibility to vote from a younger age but a robust economy; a sense that their efforts will be rewarded; and a prosperous, hopeful, peaceful and safe country. I think these are the priorities for our 16- and 17-year-olds—not whether they can vote but what we can do to help them, the next generation. And I believe that that is what the Turnbull government is indeed delivering.
Madam Deputy President, and Senator Steele-John, there are 76 people in this place and 150 in the other place who, while they may very well disagree about the path, want Harry and his generation's future to be as bright as humanly possible. They want to give them every opportunity to thrive, to grow, to flourish and to succeed. Sixteen-year-olds don't need a vote. What they need most of all is responsible parliamentarians with sound minds, courageous spirits—as is yours, Senator Steele-John—and good hearts to pave that path for them.
I rise to speak in relation to Senator Steele-John's private member's bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018. At the heart of this bill is a really important issue: participation in democracy that is Australia's electoral system, and I'm grateful to Senator Steele-John for allowing me this opportunity to talk about the issue. Given the confusion that surrounded the views in terms of Senator Farrell's contribution, I want to make it very clear from the outset that the Labor position in respect of this bill is that we believe the appropriate course in order for it to be progressed is for it to be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—which you very ably chair, Madam Deputy President. That committee has done some very good work in recent times. It has addressed some of the topical issues of the day—issues of foreign donations and section 44 of the Constitution. A lot of Australians may not be aware that that particular committee operates in a very collaborative way most of the time on the very rarely partisan issues that are dealt with. In fact, there are very often bipartisan views on some very unexpected matters. So it is a well-functioning committee. It's a longstanding committee, and I think it is the committee that will do proper justice to this particular issue, because it is one that deserves additional consideration. Senator Steele-John might be aware that the sorts of issues he raises in this bill were taken by Labor to the last federal election. So, we were a bit disappointed to see this bill sitting on the Notice Paper from Monday to Thursday, allowing us only a very short period of time to debate its merits. And I do want to reiterate the point that I think this is a bill that should receive the appropriate scrutiny. It's our view that these issues should be properly considered by the committee.
When it comes to the Labor Party's position on this issue, historically we have had a very proud track record of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise. And let's not forget that it was the Labor government in 2012 who introduced the automatic enrolment provisions, extending the right to vote to thousands of disenfranchised voters across the country. Prior to the last election the Labor Party announced a broad strategy to engage young Australians in the political system and to empower them to drive and to guide change. There are a couple of excerpts from those announcements that I think are worth citing. Firstly, the research by the Whitlam Institute showed that young people want to be involved in decision-making processes and should be offered opportunities to do so within existing political structures—I'll come back to that issue later on. We also highlighted the fact that encouraging their participation will encourage greater transparency and engagement, inspire short-term issues-based or community-centred action to improve longer-term decision-making processes, and value and acknowledge the contribution of young people through a process of accountability back to those young people.
We do know that young people are active participants in public life and active contributors to, amongst other things, the taxation system. According to the Australian census figures and taxation statistics, in 2012-13 over 17,000 Australians aged under 18 paid over $41 million in income tax alone. This does not take into account indirect taxes paid by young Australians—for example, the GST.
Our policy announcement also made reference to the fact that 16- and 17-year-olds are already permitted to engage in a range of adult activities, which have been canvassed previously. They can apply for the military from the age of 16 years and six months, to commence service at the age of 17; for a drivers licence from between 16 years and six months and 17, or 18 in the case of Victoria; for a private pilot licence from the age of 16 for balloons and gliders and 17 for other aircraft; and for a firearms licence at 14 years, although there is some variation across the states and territories. They can make independent decisions about medical matters and the decision to leave home at the age of 16. As we said back then, if 16- and 17-year-olds can be trusted to join the military, to drive on our roads and to live independently, they should also be trusted to directly participate in our representative democracy by having their say at the ballot box. We also said that directly involving 16- and 17-year-olds in our democracy is an opportunity to engage young people in an important conversation about civic responsibility and community values and expectations, and to help them become productive members of society. We believe that we owe it to all those 16- and 17-year-olds who work, pay tax, earn penalty rates, drive on our roads and use public services to give respectful consideration to this proposal, and we're happy to keep having that conversation.
While I'm talking about what some might consider to be anomalies, let's not forget that, under many of the industrial awards that apply to Australians—in retail, for example, and other industries—when you're 18 years of age and for all intents and purposes an adult under our system, you're getting 70 per cent of the rate of pay of a 21-year-old. There are some anomalies that I think many young people would want to see addressed. Thankfully there is an industrial campaign by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association to address that. If anybody would like more information about that, they can visit 100percentpay.com.au. As I said, the engagement of young people in the system enables those types of issues to be addressed. Young people can get involved in that campaign. Joining the SDA is another opportunity for people to show their support for that initiative. Because of the work of the SDA on the retail award, 20-year-olds now have the benefit of the 100 per cent rate of pay.
We believe that a number of issues about lowering the voting age need to be canvassed, and we undertook at the last election to consult with government, community leaders and young people across the country prior to recommending a change in the legislative provision. In that sense we are being consistent. We believe there is an important need for consultation and for stakeholders to be involved in this decision. It is our belief that this issue should be afforded appropriate attention, and therefore it's not adequate to simply debate legislation without a considered review process. For that reason we're not in a position to support it at this point, but as I said, we think it should be carefully considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
When thinking about the current bill, we have a number of issues which time doesn't permit me to go into, but I would have liked to have raised that the voluntary nature proposed in this bill for voting under the age of 18 has the potential to cause some confusion. I think the compulsory voting system we have in this country is a very worthwhile one. It has led to overwhelming engagement in the voting process, and I would be personally concerned if there were any steps to diminish that. I'm not suggesting Senator Steele-John has that motivation, but it is important that we maintain that compulsory voting system. I also had some concerns about the 'rock up and enrol' provision, and time doesn't permit me to speak further on that. I would have loved to have talked about the corresponding need for civics and citizenship education to be part of any conversation about changing the voting age.
I ask that the Senate support the referral of the bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters so that it receives the appropriate analysis. We would especially like to see the principles of engaging young people in the electoral system considered in conjunction with the work done in the inquiry into electoral education, an inquiry that you know that I'm very concerned about.
It being 6 pm, debate is interrupted.
I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning Australian survivors of thalidomide.
I'd like to take note of government document No. 6, the Australian Building and Construction Commission's Performance of the functions and the exercise of powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner: quarterly report: first quarter of 2017-18 financial year: operations from 1 July-30 September inclusive. You really can't deal with this document without dealing with the minister who had, until recently, oversight of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and that is Senator Michaelia Cash.
Senator Michaelia Cash has really made an absolute mess of everything that she has touched. She has come in here as an industrial warrior, a political warrior, for the coalition. She has sat and not properly oversighted her portfolio area. You only have to look at what's been done by this minister: putting her apparatchiks in various so-called independent organisations—the Registered Organisations Commission, the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. You see a mesh and a framework of people associated with this minister in these so-called independent bodies and actually acting in a partisan way against the trade union movement and against the Labor Party. This minister is an absolute disgrace.
It was only an hour ago that I was up in the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee hearing that was a flow-over from the estimates committee hearings. Minister Cash was there. I gave her the opportunity once again to actually be honest and be up-front with the Australian people in relation to her bad behaviour as a minister, her poor behaviour as a minister and her failure to uphold Westminster standards—her coming into Senate estimates and on five occasions misleading the parliament. On five occasions this minister misled the parliament. She then had to come into estimates and concede that one of her staff was the leak to the media of a Federal Police raid. The Commissioner of the Federal Police, at a subsequent estimates hearing, indicated that he was extremely concerned about those leaks because it puts the Federal Police in danger and puts their capacity to do the job effectively in question.
This is a minister who has presided over some of the worst aspects of ministerial oversight that I have ever seen. Here she was. The previous ABCC commissioner, the disgraced Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, who had responsibility to oversight the ABCC and who had responsibility to carry out and police the legal requirements of the industry, was breaching the standards that he was supposed to uphold. This was another one of Senator Cash's apparatchiks: the disgraced Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, the former commissioner. This was when she was in a position where she should have taken action against him but did not. She spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money to defend this commissioner. The commissioner himself was spending this money, and the minister, Michaelia Cash, had no proper oversight of the disgraceful activities.
The Registered Organisations Commission is another so-called independent body set up by this government to attack the trade union movement and the Labor Party. This is a government that is outrageous. Minister Cash would do well as part of the ruling oligarchy in Russia, doing what they do to subvert democracy there. Minister Cash is doing the same thing here. Minister Cash is an absolute disgrace. Minister Cash should resign. Minister Cash should be honest with the Australian public. She should show some credibility and some capacity to understand what her obligations are. If she did, she would resign.
Senator Cameron, your time has expired.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I'd like to take note of government document No. 20, the Australian Building and Construction Commission's Performance of the functions and the exercise of powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner: quarterly report for the period 1 October to 31 December 2017. I just want to turn to the situation in the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is one of the worst organisations to have ever been established by a government in this country. It's an organisation that is designed to attack the trade union movement and diminish unions' capacity to properly service and represent their membership in the industry. It is a political tool of the government, and it's a political tool that was used against the union movement by Senator Michaelia Cash when she was the minister responsible.
Senator Michaelia Cash needs to be honest with the Australian public. Senator Michaelia Cash should stop expending public money to defend her position and hide her involvement in the raids on the AWU offices. Hundreds of thousands of dollars has been expended by the minister and the Registered Organisations Commission on attacks on the trade union movement, and that is unacceptable. All this minister needs to do is be honest and open with the Australian public. All this minister needs to do is stand up in the Senate and answer the questions that she's been asked. All Minister Cash needs to do is stand up in the estimates committee hearings and, again, be honest with the Australian people. But this minister is incapable of being honest with the Australian people. She has set this network of influence in so-called independent organisations such as the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Registered Organisations Commission and the ABCC, using her influence and the influence of the Liberal Party to attack the trade union movement and her political opponents. The sooner these organisations go, the better. The sooner this minister resigns, the better.
This is a minister who has got no concept of ministerial responsibility or of what she needs to do as a minister. She has simply been caught out doing what she should not be doing—that is, interfering in the operation of so-called independent bodies. This is a minister who denied five times that her office had any involvement in the leak to the press of an Australian Federal Police raid on the AWU offices in Sydney and in Melbourne, and it was a humiliating exercise when she had to come back in to concede that her office was involved. She continues to refuse to indicate whether she has been interviewed by the Australian Federal Police. She continues to refuse to take responsibility for what has happened. It's the worst example of ministerial responsibility I have ever seen in this place, and there have been lots of problems on the other side of this chamber.
This is a minister who does not deserve to be sitting on the frontbench in this place. She should resign because she is not accepting what she should do—that is, show honesty towards the Australian people and the Senate. This is a minister who comes in here and uses parliamentary privilege to attack union organisers and the trade union movement, and uses all of her capacity as a minister to attack them unmercifully. Yet, when she is in a position where she should be accepting ministerial responsibility, she refuses to do it. Hundreds of thousands in taxpayers' money is spent attacking the trade union movement and working people in this country, and it's all designed to diminish workers' capacity to get a decent rate of pay and conditions in the building industry. The minister's position is that she would like to see workers earn less. It's an absolute disgrace that this coalition government comes in here talking about tax and helping the working people in this country. They have no concept of what working people in this country need in terms of decent wages and decent conditions. If they did, they wouldn't be misusing these independent bodies. (Time expired)
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I'd like to take note of document No. 27, the Australian Building and Construction Commission's Performance of the functions and the exercise of powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner: quarterly report for the period 1 January to 31 March 2018. We've got a new commissioner in place after the disgraced Nigel Hadgkiss was basically forced to resign, and we have a minister in Senator Cash who allowed that disgraced commissioner to receive about a month's pay when he should have been sacked. This is a minister who took no responsibility for this senior appointment being in breach of the act that he was supposed to be oversighting and regulating.
Senator Cash has never in my time here actually really been worried or concerned about Australian workers. She was at one stage the Minister for Women, and you can look at the disgraceful performance that she turned on when she attacked young women in the Leader of the Opposition's office in what was the most disgraceful performance I have seen. I have to say this to Senator Cash: no whiteboard will hide you from those performances, and no whiteboard will ever be able to disguise the terrible position that you took against young women. What a disgrace this minister was, who was supposed to be the Minister for Women, attacking the reputation of innocent, hardworking, effective—
Senator McKenzie, a point of order?
Senator Cameron is talking about the way the former Minister for Women has purportedly treated women. She has been nothing but a very strong advocate, particularly for the women that were bullied by the CFMEU whilst—
Senator McKenzie, that is a debating point and not a point of order.
Senator McKenzie, thank you very much for that interjection. I have to say to you that you are defending a minister who shamelessly attacked young women.
Senator Cameron, I will just remind you to make your remarks to the chair.
I apologise, Deputy President. This is a minister who shamelessly and publicly attacks young women, who are hardworking young people working in the Australian parliament. We see the attack that was done by this minister. It was disgraceful. She had to be forced to even make a moderate apology; she had to be forced into that position. For Senator McKenzie to come in here and try to defend that obnoxious attack on young women in the Leader of the Opposition's office is also a disgrace. Maybe Senator McKenzie should get up and apologise for that disgraceful attempt to try to cover up and support a minister who was shamelessly attacking young women in the Leader of the Opposition's office.
I don't expect anything very good from the National Party. I don't expect anything from the National Party. They are the doormats for the Liberal Party; they simple do exactly what the Liberal Party asks them to do. I would have thought there would have been at least some sense from Senator McKenzie not to engage in what has been one of the worst attacks on young women in this place, in the 10 years I've been here, that I have ever seen. Senator McKenzie should actually get up and apologise. Senator McKenzie should not associate herself with what has been widely seen as one of the worst attacks ever on young women who have worked in this parliament.
I know why this is being done. It is because the minister herself won't take any responsibility for her actions. Minister Cash has refused to answer questions. Minister Cash is continuing to expend public funds to defend her position, and it's absolutely outrageous. Here comes the cavalry from the National Party. That great defender of women, Senator O'Sullivan, has just walked in. I'm sure that he'll make some terrible contribution as well. He is someone who has bullied women in this place incessantly and constantly. Minister Cash should consider her position. Minister Cash should do the right thing. Minister Cash should accept some responsibility and resign. Minister Cash has one of the worst public profiles of any minister. She is an embarrassment to an embarrassing government, and that takes some doing. Minister Cash should do the right thing and resign. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I'd like to consider document No. 26 on the National Broadband Network. In doing so, I want to bring to the attention of the chamber the great work that the National Party and the coalition have done in the area of communications. I have just listened to Senator Cameron, for longer than I wanted to, and I realised from his contribution that of course he was missing the mark—on everything! They've spent two days attacking the government's legislation to create tax cuts for Australians. And not once did he make a mention of the need for—nor, indeed, did he endorse—the black spot program that's happened with telecommunications.
What Senator Cameron has clearly demonstrated over a long, long period of time here is that all he wants to do is to focus on protecting the CFMEU. If you were to go back and have a look at his contributions over time, you'd find that every contribution is punctured with protecting that criminal agency, the CFMEU. He wants to lay down that we're bullies. Jiminy darn cricket! We wouldn't blow wind up the whistle of their kilt—to use one of your national references, Senator Cameron—of the behaviour of the CFMEU. Are the CFMEU interested in whether our people in regional and rural Australia can make phone calls? Are they interested as to whether they can, at any stage, access the internet to be able to conduct their business? No. No—not one word. I've been in here four years—not one word out of Senator Cameron about the bush. And, of course, we know the reason for that. It is because he simply doesn't know where it is. The only bushes he sees are between his house and the airport in Sydney on his way to Canberra. So he comes in here and attacks us and ignores speaking on and representing the people of western New South Wales. I know Senator Cameron's a senator for the city—and not just for the city, he's a senator for job sites in the city. He's an extension of the CFMEU in this place. He defends them. They dispatch him. I bet he gets a call every other day so that they give him something, here, to take on Senator Cash.
The problem is, Senator Cameron: she's a bit hard for you to swallow. You're not in her class. Her ability to maintain her dignity through this has been enormous. She does care about telecommunications; she does care about the Black Spot Program; she does care to see that Australians get an equal opportunity to be able to use telecommunications—to access the internet, to speak on and to look after the interests of their children around education and a whole range of things.
So, I would like to pose a challenge for Senator Cameron over the next little bit: I'll bet you that you can't get through a contribution where you don't mention the CFMEU or Senator Cash. You've had a crack. I've got to tell you: one thing you'll get full points for—
Senator O'Sullivan, please direct your comments to the chair.
Thank you. One thing that Senator Cameron will get full points for—nearly 99½—is for failed persistence. You can be as persistent as you like—and, to use the words of the minister, just because—and, in fact, not just because; especially because—Senator Cameron says it, doesn't make it so.
So I've got to tell you, Senator Cameron: the challenge for you is to start thinking about all Australians. Senator Cameron should start thinking about their interests and put as much energy into supporting regional and rural Australia as the great people who create the wealth—the people who created the leather under his suit pants, and created his suit pants, his cotton shirt and his spectacles. All of that has come from primary production. If he took enough interest, he would have been talking on this National Broadband Network and all the work that we have done and the billions of dollars of investment that we have had in this country to try to bring people of rural and regional Australia up to a standard where they can at least compete with their businesses. We tried to get some of these good folk a bit of a tax cut today. That's been resisted. So it's time that they broaden their vocabulary and start to focus on some of the issues for rural and regional Australia and leave the minister alone.
I'd like to make some remarks on the same document. I always like talking about the NBN, the failed government NBN, the NBN that gets more complaints than any other government endeavour in this place. It has been an absolute disgrace. I actually was on the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN. It was an absolute disgrace when the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, was given his riding instructions by the then opposition leader, Mr Tony Abbott, to destroy the NBN. Well, let me tell you: Prime Minister Turnbull has succeeded. He's destroyed the NBN. He's destroyed any capacity to be seen as technically competent and technologically competent when it comes to the NBN.
I don't know where Senator O'Sullivan was coming from in the pathetic contribution that he just undertook. If that is the best they can do in sending the cavalry in to protect Senator Cash, they need to do something better than what we just saw there—five minutes of absolute drivel and absolute nonsense. This is a senator who has the same reputation as Senator Cash in this place—and that is that they attack women. Senator O'Sullivan has been ruthless in his approach to women in estimates committee hearings. You just have to look at his performance over the years. I know that when I lived in the bush most men there treated women with some respect. Unfortunately, that's not what you see with Senator O'Sullivan. I think he might have been a bit tired and emotional in that last five-minute speech. I will give him some advice: don't get on your feet again if that's the best you can do, because you're tiredness and emotional approach is sticking out a mile. I know it is getting on late, but it's not that late. It is quite early in the evening. I'm surprised he was so tired and so emotional this early in the evening.
Let's talk about the National Party. Let's talk about New England, my duty electorate. Let me tell you: the National Party is on the nose in New England. The National Party is on the nose in New England because of the contributions that the member up there has made to dignity and decency. He paraded around as some holier-than-thou senator when he was here in the Senate. He paraded around as some holier-than-thou Deputy Prime Minister who then had to resign in disgrace. What an absolutely pathetic performance! These are the types of people that we have in the National Party. They really don't care about people in the bush. If they actually cared about people in the bush, you know what they would have done today? They would have opposed these tax cuts that are going predominantly to rich people in the city. This is another example of how the National Party are absolutely pathetic. They absolutely do not care about the people they represent. If they did, they wouldn't be handing huge amounts of money, tens of thousands of dollars, to rich Australians at the expense of working people in the bush, who are predominantly on the award wage.
So they attack working people when it comes to tax. The National Party attack working people when it comes to penalty rates. The only thing that keeps many Australians in the bush able to survive is their penalty rates, yet the National Party continue to attack penalty rates and have not supported penalty rates. Even Senator Hanson was so embarrassed that she had to end up standing up for penalty rates. You'll never hear a National Party member stand up for workers in their communities who are getting their penalty rates ripped away. The National Party are a national disgrace. The National Party have no credibility. Don't lecture me about the bush when you don't look after them. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
The Australian Building and Construction Commission—
Senator O'Sullivan, I'm informed by the Clerk that this has timed out and we've now finished that.
Senator Cameron, would you move a motion to allow me to speak on the ABCC?
Senator O'Sullivan, please resume your seat.
I rise to take note of the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Red Tape on the effect of red tape on health services. The Select Committee on Red Tape was established in October 2016 to inquire into and report on the effects of restrictions and prohibitions—that is, red tape—on the economy and community. It's presented interim reports on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol, tobacco retailing, environmental assessment and approvals, and pharmacy rules. I presented the interim report on health services in late March and now speak to the report.
Regulation has an important role in promoting the quality and safety of health services. While many risks surrounding health services can be reasonably foreseen by an average consumer, some cannot. However, submitters and witnesses described how health regulation is sometimes costly, excessive, ineffective and outdated. They argued that this red tape is impeding competition, growth, viability and efficiency. Submitters and witnesses argued that this red tape is adversely affecting health service consumers, with the consumers most affected being the disadvantaged, and they argued that this red tape is adversely affecting health service providers. In fact, in some instances people could be dissuaded from undertaking a career as a health practitioner due to the regulatory burden. Ultimately this is not in the public interest.
Let me mention some specifics. Roche Products submitted that red tape surrounding clinical research means that Australia is missing out on research to our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. Day Hospitals Australia submitted that private standalone day hospitals are a growing part of the health system, but there are significant challenges to running a day hospital in the current legislative, regulatory and accreditation environment. Some of the conditions imposed on the day hospital sector severely hinder financial viability and thus the provision of services to patients. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Medical Oncology Group argued that general practitioners and oncologists unnecessarily spend a large amount of time on management and administration. Both indicated that this expenditure burdens doctors and could be better spent on the delivery of health services.
The Australian Dental Association claimed that dental practices are subject to a much higher level of regulatory oversight than medical GPs. Its submission conservatively estimated compliance costs at $397 million in 2016, or $84,400 per practice. The Australian Dental Industry Association agreed. Both groups argued that this burden of compliance makes dentists less likely to be innovative and entrepreneurial, not to mention that they would be less able to treat more patients. Similarly, the time and resources required to navigate and comply with red tape will lead to higher costs of care for patients.
The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia outlines several red tape issues associated with the PBS Safety Net, the PBS authority system and the lack of an electronic prescribing and electronic prescriptions system. But it wasn't all bad news. Medicines Australia acknowledged steps undertaken by the Commonwealth government to streamline assessment processes and expedite access to some priority medicines. Its submission also expressed support for the new provisional approval pathway process that will facilitate the registration of new prescription medicines. However, Roche argued that the process for PBS listing is still unnecessarily complex and lengthy. It particularly argued that there were opportunities to reduce the number of submissions and resubmissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for reimbursement of new medicines.
The committee also looked at red tape surrounding private health insurance. Private Healthcare Australia indicated that one of the most frustrating red tape issues is the prohibition against health funds funding out-of-hospital care, arguing that this prohibition is no longer practical or appropriate. The example was given of someone who has surgery for cancer—in hospital, for which cover can be provided. But the remainder of their care, including chemo, pathology and imaging, occurs out of hospital. Health insurance is prohibited from covering the co-payment for this. This leads to people facing huge out-of-pocket costs. The same applies to pregnancies. Insurance cover is permitted for the birth in hospital but not for any out-of-hospital care. This is leading to people going to hospital unnecessarily in order for the costs to be covered by health insurance. One of the committee's recommendations is that the Department of Health investigate allowing private health funds to fund out-of-hospital care.
On prostheses, the committee heard how unnecessary regulation is adding significantly to costs. Although steps are being undertaken to improve this, the committee is not convinced that either consumers or industry players benefit from government intervention in the prostheses market. Provided that there remains general oversight of product safety and efficacy, leaving the rest to a free market would seem likely to result in reduced costs and better patient outcomes. The committee recommends that the government considers ceasing regulation of the prostheses market, apart from maintaining standard consumer protection.
As is regularly mentioned in examinations of red tape, duplication of regulation is a significant area of concern. The committee heard how dentists are subject to regulatory inconsistencies and compliance challenges. For example, on teeth whitening products, the ACCC, the TGA and state health departments each try to tell them what they can sell. On infection control, they are subject to duplication involving the Dental Board of Australia as well as state governments, with inconsistencies and duplication having no benefit to anyone. Some submitters and witnesses contended that red tape and the provision of health services could be significantly reduced with up-to-date digital technologies. They pointed to multiple opportunities for this, beginning with electronic prescriptions. Even when processes are digital, this results in the 'bizarre' situation where doctors and other professionals are issued with multiple identifier numbers for practice purposes. The committee cannot perceive any logical reason why healthcare practitioners should require multiple identifiers. As part of digital reform, the government should streamline these to reduce the red tape burdens that they create.
On clinical trials, the committee heard that there was substantial scope for increasing consistency for obtaining ethics approvals, particularly for trials across multiple sites and institutions. The committee considers that by standardising and harmonising the ethics approval process governments could reduce the red tape associated with clinical trials.
On diagnostic imaging, the committee heard there was excessive red tape at the state and territory level, which results in a compliance burden for suppliers and health-care professionals. For example, in most jurisdictions in Australia dentists are required to purchase two sets of licences with respect to radiation machines: one to own and possess the machine and the other to use it. The same duplication applies for class 4 laser equipment—one to possess and one to use. The committee recommends the government place licensing requirements for the supply, ownership and operation of diagnostic equipment on the agenda for consideration by COAG.
The Australian government's 2013 deregulation agenda aimed to reduce excessive, unnecessary and complex regulation to lift productivity and boost growth. The committee supports this objective but has found that excessive red tape continues to affect health services. It is telling that the government has not published red-tape savings in the health portfolio for a couple of years. So perhaps the most important recommendation of the Red Tape Committee is for the red-tape reduction reports for 2016 and 2017 in the health portfolio to be published without delay. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On page 20 of today's Notice Paper, at item No. 4, there is an order of the day which relates to a motion to adopt the Privileges Committee report Parliamentary privilege and the use of intrusive powers. I shall put that motion separately. The question is that the report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
I rise tonight to recognise that this is Refugee Week, a week to celebrate the contribution refugees have made and continue to make to the social and economic fabric of Australia. But it is also a week to highlight the unfair and cruel policies this government is imposing on asylum seekers living in Australia by cutting the income support that they receive.
But, before I do that, I would like to acknowledge the death of another young asylum seeker last week. His name was Fariborz Karami. He killed himself inside the Australian-run regional processing centre on Nauru. He was 26 years old. His wife and his mother are now in hospital. His young brother has been taken into the care of the centre's authorities. Fariborz was a Kurdish refugee from Iran who had been severely traumatised in the country he had fled from, and he had then been locked up on Nauru for five years by the Australian government. He had several mental health issues and had been crying out for help for years. Fariborz, though, was the third asylum seeker to take his own life in the last 12 months. He died just three weeks after the tragic loss of a young Rohingya man's life on Manus Island. In total, 12 refugees have died under tragic circumstances from injuries or illnesses sustained in Australia's offshore detention centres. I want to pass my thoughts and condolences on to the family members of those asylum seekers who have died.
The tragic loss of life of asylum seekers highlights the dire need for care and assistance for these vulnerable people to prevent further harm and tragedy. I urge the Turnbull government to provide such support, which it has a duty of care to do. This is a human tragedy. It is a tragedy that I believe is worthy of an inquiry to investigate the human rights abuses of people who have sought our protection and the ongoing unmet medical needs of those who remain in indefinite detention. It saddens me that this has happened under our watch, that we have not prevented this from happening and that these human beings weren't given the protections and opportunities to rebuild their lives that any humane country would offer them.
So this is Refugee Week. If nothing else, it's an opportunity for refugees to be listened to, to be valued and to be seen. It is a week to recognise the risk to life for those families who cross borders, fleeing persecution and seeking protection. It is a week to recognise that 1,369 people are still in detention in Australia: 225, including 22 children, are detained on Nauru, and over 500 are forsaken on Manus Island. I've heard stories of people being moved pointlessly from one detention centre to another, of families being split up and of heartless treatment in detention of all varieties, causing even more trauma to their lives. But it doesn't stop there. The situation just got a whole lot worse for those asylum seekers in our Australian community who have been waiting for five or six years for the coalition government to decide about their refugee claims.
Minister Dutton's Department of Home Affairs has started removing the last lifeline from thousands of these people by changing the eligibility rules for its Status Resolution Support Services Program, SRSS. Potentially, over 13,000 people, over 4,000 of whom are children, are living on the edge of disaster, at risk of losing the financial support they need while their claims are being processed. Because their refugee claims are undecided by government, these people find it extremely difficult to find work. Employers, unfortunately, are not lining up to give a job to someone with no Australian work experience or networks who is on a short-term bridging visa and who has never been given help to learn English. These people have one option keeping them from utter destitution. The Status Resolution Support Services Program provides an extremely basic allowance for people who would otherwise not be able to survive while their refugee claims are being considered. Their allowance gives a single person less than $35 a day and is well below the 2016 poverty line. It is 89 per cent of Newstart allowance and provides access to torture trauma counselling. But now the home affairs department has made it clear that if it decides someone is 'work ready' then they will lose their SRSS payment, even if that person can't actually get a job or has significant mental and physical health issues or is a carer of young children.
During the recent Senate estimates, a Home Affairs official admitted to me that someone who is still waiting for their refugee assessment to be completed and is on the SRSS payment cannot study full time in Australia, despite having arrived as a minor and having gone through high school and entered university with good grades. This is what has happened to Sarvenaz. Sarvenaz has been on a bridging visa and has a scholarship for full-time university. She said, 'How do people expect someone to arrive in this country and find a job when they don't have access to services, they're stressing from the trauma they've been through, they're an applicant who hasn't been processed, they don't have skills to work with and their education history isn't accepted? How do they find work?' But their SRSS payment is now being withdrawn because the government has decided that they should not be studying full time, even if they are studying English to improve their chances of getting a job; they should just get a job, even though there may be no job that they can get and even though they may have a scholarship to go to university. This just beggars belief! These are some of the most vulnerable people in Australia and they're trying to rebuild their lives. Instead, the Turnbull government wants to cut off their financial support, somehow thinking that it's going to help them. Remember, most of these people who came to Australia are genuine refugees with skills and are motivated to contribute to Australia and lead a safe life in a welcoming country, but they were detained for months, some for years, and were not allowed to work.
Nada, her husband and her daughter have been here for six years and lost their SRSS payment in February. Nada said: 'We still don't have a future for my daughter. I didn't feel safe in my country because of problems with the government. But I feel shamed that I brought her here and we spent two-and-a-half years in detention.'
Pregnant women, families with young children and survivors of torture—who are not vulnerable enough according to the new much stricter criteria—will be stripped of any form of income. This is not only cruel but so short-sighted. But, according to Minister Dutton, the blame lies with these desperate people themselves. His department points to the length of time these people have been in Australia on the SRSS payment without getting a job, but never acknowledges that the primary reason they can't get a job is that the government has delayed their refugee applications. At the very saddest and hardest part of their lives, people who have sought our protection will lose their only source of income, as meagre as that is. Then what will happen? The charities that they rely on are already overstretched. There is also clearly a callous money grab here by the government, which simply does not care about vulnerable people in our community.
In the coming months the proposed changes are likely to make thousands more vulnerable people in our communities homeless, destitute and desperate. Desperation, we know, leads to increased crime and poverty. But it does not have to be this way. We should be working on a compassionate approach to asylum seekers. We should be working on a lasting regional solution which would humanely address the plight of asylum seekers, redirecting funding to areas where it would achieve positive results—to UNHCR refugee camps, to peace negotiations, to foreign aid, to engagement with Indonesia and Malaysia to establish lasting refugee resettlement in the region and to increasing our refugee intake. That is what this Turnbull government has failed to do and is what a Labor government will do, because we recognise that Australia is a nation built on migration and we must respect and recognise refugees, who have gone on to make invaluable contributions to our society, and celebrate the rich diversity of refugees who now call Australia home.
Finally, in this refugee week, on behalf of the Senate I would like to recognise all of the dedicated men and women in our community, from all walks of life, who work to support and welcome refugees. Thank you for all of your efforts. (Time expired)
I rise this evening to offer my most sincere and heartfelt congratulations to those recipients of this year's Queen's birthday honours. Those recognised in these honours are Australians from all across our great nation who have selflessly dedicated their time in pursuit of a better Australia to be shared by all. Hailing from all walks of life, they are exemplary in their leadership, their commitment and their resolve—the three pillars of the Australian spirit. These Australians have taken to heart the words of the old proverb that exhorts us to be the change you want to see in the world.
As all the members of this chamber know, I am a patriot, a monarchist and an immensely proud Victorian. As is the case year in and year out Victorians are very, very well represented in this round of Queen's birthday honours, and I wish to wholeheartedly congratulate all Victorian recipients for the recognition of their achievements. Each and every one is so richly deserved.
More specifically, I would like to single out my congratulations and thanks to the following Victorian recipients who have so significantly contributed to and strengthened the fabric of our society through their service and dedication in their respective fields: Mr William Eldred Hennessy, of Clifton Hill, for being made a member of the General Division of the Order of Australia—AM—for significant service to music as a concert violinist, artistic director, mentor and educator; Ms Jane Ward Smith, of Black Hill, for significant service to the broadcast media industry, particularly to film and television, through administrative roles, and to the community; and Mr Christian John Zahra, of Trentham, for significant service to rural and regional development, to the advancement of Indigenous welfare, and to the Parliament of Australia.
To recipients of the OAM, the Medal of the Order of Australia, in the general division, my sincere congratulations go to two very special people, good friends of mine: Mr Michael Alexander Pointer, of Box Hill North, for his selfless service to the beef livestock industry through a range of roles—congratulations, Michael—and Mr Ian Robert Mence, of Brighton, for his unwavering dedication to the community of Brighton—congratulations, Ian.
Congratulations also to Mrs Olive Patricia Bice, of Maiden Gully, for dedicated service to the performing arts, particularly through country music; Ms Margaret Anne Brickhill, from Wangaratta, for selfless service to the performing arts and to the community of Wangaratta; Mr Patrick Thomas Cahir, of Preston, for diligent service to the community through a range of organisations; Mr Brendon John Collins, from Leneva, for industrious service to the building and construction industry; Mrs Patricia Bette Cook, of Clunes, for tireless service to the community of Clunes; Ms Yvonne June Dichiera, from Buninyong, for noble service to the multicultural community of Ballarat; Mrs Margaret Kathleen Keech, of Strathfieldsaye, for assiduous service to the community of Bendigo; Mr Ian Douglas Lawrey, from the Melton area, for admirable service to veterans and their families; Mrs Helen June L'Huillier, of Mount Beauty, for enthusiastic service to cross-country skiing and to the community; Dr Angus Ormond McKinnon, from Euroa, for meticulous service to veterinary science, particularly to equine production; Mr Ian James McPherson, of Eddington, for patient service to youth and to golf—you have to be very patient for golf, Mr McPherson; Mr Kenneth Sidney Missen, late of Eynesbury, for dutiful service to the community through a range of roles; Mr Donald Ivan Moss, from Ballarat, for hardworking service to medicine, particularly to urology; Ms Carol Lilly Muir, of Hoppers Crossing, for determined service to social welfare through advocacy roles; Ms Melita Maree Parker, from Flora Hill, for compassionate service to people with a disability through advocacy roles; Dr Graeme Alfred Pollock, of Westmeadows, for devoted service to medical research, particularly to corneal transplantation; Dr Rita Katharina Seethaler, from Taggerty, for her service to steel band music and to the community; Mr John Moore Sharwood, of Alexandra, for untiring service to the community through a range of roles; Mr Francis Patrick Sheehan, from Invermay Park, for persistent service to the community of Ballarat; Mr Neville John Sillitoe, of Coburg North, for active service to athletics; Mr Garry Clifford Taylor, from Lake Wendouree, for altruistic service to secondary education and to the community; Mr Deepak Vinayak, of Craigieburn, for uniting service to the multicultural community of Victoria; Mrs Ronda Beckley Walker, from Kyneton, for generous service to the community and to women; Mr Rodney Steven Wangman, of Baranduda, for service to local government and to the community of Albury-Wodonga; and Mr Mark Anthony Young, from Niddrie, for community-minded service to social welfare organisations and to youth at risk.
There's another great Victorian whom I'd like to take a moment to congratulate: Mr Tom O'Toole. Tom was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in recognition of his years of service to both the bakery business and the community of Beechworth. The Beechworth Bakery is an iconic business. It employs over 250 workers and has sister bakeries across Victoria. I had the pleasure of visiting the Beechworth Bakery just a few weeks ago and got a tour of the back kitchens. It was absolutely fascinating. Mr O'Toole is a wonderful example of how hard work, innovation and community mindedness meet, and he makes a mean bee sting as well!
I wholeheartedly congratulate all those who have been awarded medals for their outstanding and selfless public service. While there are too many to name them all individually, I would like to make a very special mention of just a couple: Dr Janis Louise Cocking, of North Fitzroy, for her outstanding service to Defence science and technology; and Mr Ronald Neil Beer, from Yea, who has provided 40 years of selfless and exceptional service to the Country Fire Authority, the CFA, in Victoria. Ms Bridget Ruth Ryan, of Smythesdale, has also served with distinction during her 35 years of active service in both the forest firefighting service and the CFA in Victoria.
Finally, I would also like to extend my warmest personal congratulations to two very special people. They are both friends and mentors. They are doyens of the Liberal Party and titans of business. I work alongside both of them as members of the board of the Menzies Research Centre. Firstly, I congratulate Mr Paul Espie of Darling Point for being made an officer, AO, of the general division of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the mining and infrastructure sectors through financial advisory roles, to public policy development and reform and to not-for-profit organisations—congratulations, Paul. Secondly, I would like to congratulate Ms Danielle Blain, whose service has been duly recognised in this year's Queen's birthday honours through her appointment as a member of the Order of Australia, AM, for significant service to business and commerce, to politics in Western Australia and to women. Danielle, as federal vice-president of the Liberal Party of Australia between 2009 and 2013, has been a truly tireless supporter, particularly of women in the Liberal Party. I thank her very much for her friendship and mentorship.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate and pay my respects to all of the members of the Australian Defence Force both here and on deployment overseas. All of the members of the ADF serve as role models for the rest of our country, with their unrivalled selflessness, their teamwork and their bravery. It is wonderful that our great nation does not take for granted the hard work, the dedication and the sacrifice of these great men and women. This evening, I would particularly like to congratulate those most recent recipients of the Military Cross, medals and commendations. Many recipients cannot be publicly named due to their ongoing operational commitments.
There are two very special times of the year in which the government and the community can express our sincere gratitude to those exemplary citizens who represent the very best of the Australian spirit. It is an extraordinary honour to be able to stand in this place this evening to name and honour those dedicated and conscientious Victorians and Australians. I thank the chamber for its time.
This afternoon in the Mural Hall, the National Library brought along some of its special treasures to share with the people in our Parliament House. It was a really fitting afternoon. Our National Library visited our national Parliament House and shared with us some of the most wonderful, inspiring pieces of personal diaries, personal belongings and some fantastic oral histories, and just teased the people in Parliament House with the wonders that are available to us just down the road at the National Library.
One of the special pleasures I have had from this parliament in the last term is that Minister Fifield appointed me and Mr Julian Leeser from the other place as the parliamentary appointees to the National Library's council. It was a special joy for me. I have loved the National Library as long as I can remember. It was a joy to have the extraordinary opportunity of working on this council and working with people from across the community who are dedicated to promoting the wonders of the National Library and the services that it provides to all Australians. It also protects and ensures that we remember our history. That will always be a very special part of my time in this place.
Earlier this year, the librarian Dr Marie-Louise Ayres and the board—with its chair, Ryan Stokes, whose tenure as the chair of the National Library's council ends in July—decided that we would have a showcase of just a couple of the special treasures to share with us in this place what was available. I have no idea how the wonderful team at the Library chose what to bring with them. Anyone who had the opportunity this afternoon would have seen the collection of artworks, the wonderful documentation and the special treasures from the Cook gallery. As you all know, there is an anniversary for Captain Cook coming up very soon. There will be a very major display present at the National Library talking about Captain Cook, his past, his contributions and why he has such a special place in the creation of our nation. There were many things there linking with that experience.
I particularly want to mention some of the treasures of the Bessie Rischbieth collection. Bessie Rischbieth is a woman who is not known particularly well in the Australian community, except in Western Australia. She was a strong advocate for women's rights who totally believed in the issues around women's empowerment, and she had the opportunity in the early 1900s to be in England around the time of the suffragette demonstrations and marches. At that time, Bessie had the opportunity to meet with people who were involved in that process and over many, many years she made a personal collection of some of the most extraordinary elements of the suffragette struggles and the possessions of the people who were involved in them. She has collected diary notes, documents—wonderful memorabilia of the suffragette process. If you have the chance between now and early August, please visit the National Library. In the Treasures Gallery you'll see some of these very, very special memories that Bessie collected.
I think that she always had the hope that sometime in future there would be a place where her collection could be displayed to show such an important part of our history: the fight to have the vote. It caused many women, and their supporters who were not women, to put this cause well above their personal comfort, their personal security and, in some cases, their personal safety. They ensured that this struggle never left the public gaze, and though it took way too long and many, many years, finally the suffrage was won.
Out of that came this wonderful collection that shows the personal engagement of women. When you have the opportunity to look at some of the badges that were worn by the women during the marches, the diary notes, the letters that they wrote and the artwork that was around at the time, you feel as though you have a personal knowledge and experience of the women themselves. Whilst I have a very particular interest in this issue, I don't think anyone could remain unmoved by looking at and hearing about the personal experiences of women who were involved in that process.
So, in terms of the value of our National Library, we just had that sneak peek this afternoon, which I hope will encourage more and more people to visit the library and see the wonderful services that they offer. A number of the parliamentarians who attended talked about the wonderful Trove program. I think, in our wider community, there are not many people who are interested in history or research who are not absolutely familiar with Trove. It is an exceptional program, which has been the beneficiary of donations from a series of governments to ensure that we do have this wonderful, internationally renowned resource. It allows access to so many documents through our national library system. I could see a number of the parliamentarians busily taking notes to learn more about how they can access this process much better in the future.
Another thing that was featured in this afternoon's display was the particular interest that the National Library has in our Aboriginal and Islander background and history. It's a particular interest of the library. They have a wonderful range of resources that look at the papers and documentation of our personal history in this nation. They have invested significant resources into ensuring that there are specialist Aboriginal and Islander staff members at the library who can bring that knowledge and ensure that all of our people have the opportunity to access the resources that they have. I think that's something that will remain in the library plan into the future.
I really want to thank the number of people from the library who were involved in bringing this display to the building today. When you actually saw how much they brought you could see the mechanics of choosing the items and transporting them, because they are very valuable. The safety and security of these provided some worry for everyone who was involved, but to see the joy of both the people who attended the session and the people from the library who brought their treasures to share made the afternoon worthwhile. I really hope that this will be the beginning of a series of exchanges.
You know, Madam Acting Deputy President McCarthy—and we have talked about this before—one of our many parliamentary friends groups is the Parliamentary Friends Of Museums, Libraries And Galleries. They pride themselves on being called GLAM—they must have worked for hours to come up with that acronym!—but they are very active. The co-chairs are Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon, and Senator Paterson. They're going to be working on trying to ensure that we have much more exchange between our national treasures—the galleries, the museums, the libraries and this place—because we all share a commitment to our history and a commitment to making sure the community has access to these wonderful places that don't belong to us; they belong to the whole of Australia. We can build that access and build those links.
Thank you to Marie-Louise Ayres and to Ryan Stokes, who gave a resignation speech today. I think we're all sad to see the end of this particular part of his contribution as a very caring, professional and engaged chair of the council. I think that, for the people who had the joy of attending, it will mean that they will know much more about their library and go to visit and see what can be provided to them just down the road.
Senate adjourned at 19:10