Does any senator wish to have the question put on any proposal? There being none, I call the clerk.
I move:
That on Thursday, 18 October 2018—
(a) the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018 be called on immediately and have precedence over all government business until determined;
(b) if by 11.45 am the bills have not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate; and
(c) paragraph (b) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
I intend to move an amendment to the motion to omit paragraphs (b) and (c). The Centre Alliance is no stranger to standing order 142. I was here in the chamber on 20 June and listened to how people were absolutely disgusted that the government would deploy such a tactic. I'm not walking away from the fact that we supported that at the time, but I point out it was a tactic that basically sought to guillotine the committee stage of a bill. In this instance, we have a couple of bills that are going to be debated and put through the chamber this morning, and there's a risk that one of them won't even get a second reading debate. Something that the Centre Alliance doesn't support at all—in any way, shape or form—is the gagging of second reading debates.
I move as an amendment:
Omit paragraphs (b) and (c).
I do this without the theatrics and without any histrionic contribution. I just simply want to make it very clear that to allow only two hours for these two important bills is extremely problematic.
Let's talk about the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017. That bill is, of course, enabling legislation for the TPP. The TPP is a significant agreement that has been worked on for a decade. The only opportunity the parliament gets to deal with this particular bill—and I know that people on the Labor side of the Senate support me in saying this, because our treaty process is so broken and there have been so many recommendations about how to change it—and the only chance this parliament really gets to have a say in any of the treaties that we sign up to is when it comes to enabling legislation. That's what we're dealing with here.
Yesterday and the day before we dealt with customs bills. Today we are being asked to consider at the committee stage the judicial review bill. I tell the minister that I have a number of very detailed questions that go absolutely to the bill and an understanding of how the bill is written, how it would affect Australian companies and how it would affect the procurement process. I'd like the opportunity to ask those in a calm, civilised, unpressured environment. I know that Senator Whish-Wilson has some questions, as does Senator Hanson-Young, relating to other elements of the TPP, understanding that a consequence of passing that bill is that the TPP will come into force. I've made the chamber well aware of our concerns with that—the first concern being that there are ISDS provisions in that bill.
On ISDS provisions: I understand the argument from the government. They say that they protect Australian companies. But, unfortunately, the bill has an adverse effect here in Australia. We've seen the case of Philip Morris. Philip Morris brought an action against Australia in relation to tobacco plain packaging. They did so after the tobacco companies challenged this parliament in our High Court as to whether the legislation that enabled the tobacco plain packaging to come into effect was lawful. They challenged that in our High Court, and they lost—they lost. They then set up a company in Hong Kong and sought to use the ISDS provisions in that arrangement that we had between Hong Kong and Australia. Just so the chamber is clear, Centre Alliance supported Australia in opposing that particular ISDS claim. Indeed the Commonwealth, rightly, argued that the tribunal was without jurisdiction, because Philip Morris had set up the company in Hong Kong specifically for the purposes of initiating ISDS, and the tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction in that case. So Australia was successful in that.
But the taxpayer, unfortunately, was made to bear the cost of that case. The government, for well over two years, tried to keep the cost of that case secret. They were asked at estimates, and they made claims about cabinet in confidence. I note that there are a lot of cabinet-in-confidence claims being made around this chamber and, indeed, across the Senate committee rooms. Most of them are very flawed and most of them undermine the doctrine. Nonetheless, former Senator Xenophon and I beat down that claim until the department recognised that they were on a loser. They then switched to international relations and said, 'Well, we can't do this because it will damage international relations.' Finally, when the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of former Senator Xenophon, the department took it to the AAT, spending more taxpayers' money to try and prevent us finding out how much that cost. The Productivity Commission had, somehow, guessed $50 million but we now know the truth. It was $39 million—$39 million in legal fees as a result of an action raised under ISDS.
What the ISDS provisions seek to do is take the sovereign risk that is borne by corporations and pass that risk to the taxpayer. I understand why the Liberal Party might want to do that; because they don't want their corporate donors to have any sovereign risk. They'd rather that that risk sit with the taxpayer; the taxpayer who has to pay for it out of some budget that would otherwise go to support the social structure of this country.
We are highly offended by the ISDS. I know the government once again says, 'No, it's good,' but even the Europeans are walking away from it. President Trump has removed it from the NAFTA. Other very solid jurisdictions that don't have crazy leaders or do strange things are walking away from ISDS. It's actually part of the Labor Party national platform not to support trade deals with ISDS, yet we've seen at least six occasions over the last couple of days where Labor have voted against their own national platform.
The other area of concern is labour market testing. We have traversed this topic in the past few days, but it applies also to the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, because it now is the last thing that stands in the way of the TPP-11 agreement coming into force for this country. The waiving of that labour market testing will allow foreign companies to bring workers into Australia without having to test to find out whether or not there is some Australian worker who can do that job. We may have electricians come in from overseas who don't even understand some of our wiring rules, so it's not just about workers; it's also about safety. I know this because I've listened to what the unions have had to say, through the media and through submissions that they've made.
Once again, I find it totally disturbing that the Labor Party, who have a fundamental objection to the waiving of labour market testing, yesterday on numerous occasions voted to allow that to occur. One Nation were against it. The Greens were against it. Centre Alliance had pronounced that it would not support it. That left it to Labor. Labor had the choice. They could have rejected this. We are not saying: walk away from the TPP. We just need to cut the cancer out. In fact, we even put up a motion yesterday that would allow the TPP to enter into effect but sunset, so that we would make it very clear to foreign nations that indeed the Labor Party were committed to removing this, and the enabling legislation would expire on 1 January 2020. But they didn't want to vote for that. They've done a deal with the coalition, just as they've done a deal here to try to shut down discussion. So we do need to have a solid committee stage for the judicial review bill.
The other bill that we are being asked to consider is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018. I want to put on the record that Centre Alliance supports this bill. However, we have to ask: what's the urgency? Why do we have to get it through the parliament today?
By-election!
I've got an interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson. He's suggesting it might be because there's a by-election in Wentworth on Saturday. We must absolutely recognise that that is what this is about. This is not measured policy.
I have great respect for Senator Cormann. He always works through legislation carefully. He negotiates well with the crossbench. He is very honourable in his representations to us. He does what he says he will do. So I'm very surprised that, in this instance, you are now seeking to guillotine the committee stage and almost completely gag the second reading stage of a bill. You know that that is not the way democracies are supposed to work. It surprises me that you would support this motion to guillotine and gag, particularly in the circumstances where there is no hurry. The TPP negotiations have been going on for over a decade. We don't have to rush this today. The tax cuts aren't going to come in the moment we pass the legislation. What is the urgency? I get it that sometimes there are urgent bills that pass through the parliament—the legislation on strawberries, for example—when we are dealing with an urgent issue, and the parliament works extremely well. I don't understand why it is that they are seeking to do this.
When the personal tax cuts were being dealt with, Senator Wong said:
I would say this to the crossbench: regardless of your position on tax, what a discourtesy to the chamber. We gave this government 3½ hours of debate last night, because we do understand that it is important to get on with this debate. We have amendments from Senator Storer …
She went on and on, saying how bad this was. That was an instance where we had allowed debate. I hope I get to ask some questions; I do have some genuine questions to ask on the judicial review bill. We're actually going into a situation where, presumably, no-one gets to speak during the second reading of the tax bill. Through you, Madam Deputy President, do people really find that acceptable? Does Senator Cormann find that acceptable? Does Senator Fifield find that acceptable? Does Senator Wong find that acceptable that there will possibly be no debate?
I just want to point out something: I think there are about three sitting weeks left where there will be legislation that passes through this chamber and, when it passes through this chamber, there are going to be moments where the Labor Party are very opposed to it. The message you're going to send us today is, 'When that occurs, Centre Alliance, what you should do is support the government and either gag or guillotine the debate.' Is that really what you want us to do? Senator Cormann said: 'We respect that the government controls the Senate. We do that all the time. We work with you to make sure that you are managing carefully the legislation that passes through this place and we support you.' But in doing this sort of stuff, where you know it's not the right thing to do, you put that great relationship that we have in jeopardy, and that may affect you moving forward. I urge you to really think carefully about what it is that you're doing today.
One of the funny things is, whenever you try and time manage debate—I know that's what you call it, but it's actually a guillotine and a gag—inevitably what happens is someone stands up and moves a motion or seeks to suspend standing orders. What that ends up doing—and I understand this—is shortening the debate time even more. That's a pattern; we know how that pattern works. People move these sorts of motions and say, 'Look, we're going to give you 2½ hours or two hours,' or whatever time frame, but you know that gets shortened by all the procedural stuff that goes on because people rightly get up and say: 'I don't like this. This is not the way the Senate is supposed to work. We're supposed to allow people to stand up and have a say.'
What is the plan for second readings for the tax bill? Is it a case that we're simply going to allocate one speaker from each party? Is that how it's going to work? Senator Patrick doesn't get to have a say. Senator Storer doesn't get to have his say. Senator Ruston doesn't get to have her say. Senator Hanson doesn't get to have her say. Is this how this works? How are you going to do that? How are you going to manage simply not allowing anyone to speak on an important bill? I know Labor have had a bit of trouble with this bill. They might not want to talk about it because they've flipped and they've flopped and they've flipped. They may need some time to actually clarify what their position is, because some of us struggle to work out what it is. Some of us simply don't know.
We would like to hear from everyone, particularly as a crossbencher who doesn't have the great resources that the government or the Labor Party have. Sometimes we sit in this chamber and listen to what people are saying, and it actually changes our minds. It actually brings in the thought, 'Maybe we haven't considered this properly,' or, 'Maybe we have to use our influence positively to get an amendment across the line to fix something that gets raised in the speeches in the second reading debate that might be wrong.' This is very, very unfortunate territory that we are marching through. I'm extremely disappointed with the government. I will give you credit because you did give advance warning of the motion, but that doesn't change the outcome. You haven't ambushed anyone here, which is good, but it still doesn't change what the outcome is, and that is that this is a guillotine.
I want to ask some questions on the judicial review bill, which may have some significance. They're genuine questions. I'll stand to be criticised if I ask these questions and you find that they're filibustering. They're genuine questions about the operation of the bill that might assist a court in interpreting what the parliamentary will was when a litigation is commenced. There are some details in the bill—and I know quite a lot about procurement; I've been involved in it for a long time. I know some of the loopholes that are employed by departments to get around some of the rules. That might be a little bit disingenuous, but the reality is I've been on the other side of the fence, dealing in environments trying to win contracts. I know that a lot of companies get to the end of a procurement and are rather upset by the outcome. Some of that could be emotional. Some of it is simply because the company has invested a lot of time and money. But there are some uncertainties in the bill that is being put to the parliament. I'd like to have those clarified in the committee stage, and that's going to take me a little bit of time. Unfortunately, Senator Cormann, you're not allowing me any time. That's extremely disappointing.
We would like to have a say to support the bill that you are bringing into the parliament on the small to medium business tax cuts. We have some good things to say about that. We want to let our constituents know why we are supporting that, but you are, unfortunately, going to deny us that opportunity. I think that's sad.
The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Patrick. I also have very high regard for Senator Patrick and the way he engages with the government, but let me say that, if he were sincere in his wish to ask questions about the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, we could have spent the last 20 minutes dealing with that particular bill. In relation to those two pieces of legislation, one is, as Senator Patrick said, an enabling piece of legislation giving effect to the trans-Pacific partnership agreement. That is a debate that has been going on for some time. Indeed, the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 also strengthens the opportunity for small business to appeal against bad decisions of government departments in the context of procurement.
In relation to the small- and medium-sized business tax cuts legislation in particular, this is a debate that has been going on for more than two years. All we're doing with this bill is bringing forward tax cuts that have previously been legislated by this parliament, including having passed through this Senate. You might recall, we had a very, very, very lengthy debate in March 2017 when the Senate ultimately voted to reduce to 25 per cent the corporate tax rate for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. The decision of the time was to do that over a time period to 2026-27. Subsequently, of course, the government sought to pass legislation to implement business tax cuts down to 25 per cent over the same period for all businesses across Australia. That was unsuccessful, and everybody here in the Senate remembers the circumstances of that. That was also a pretty lengthy debate which went over months.
The government has accepted the verdict of the Senate. The government has announced very clearly that all we're trying to do here is bring forward what has already been legislated. We think it's important to provide that certainty to small- and medium-sized businesses as soon as possible so that we can have the beneficial effect of increased investment, stronger growth, more jobs and higher wages as soon as possible, because by giving that certainty to small- and medium-sized businesses at the earliest opportunity, we of course help them make investment decisions today about their future growth opportunities. I don't think it's fair to say that there hasn't been ample opportunity for debate in relation to the government's proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate for small- and medium-sized businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million in the Senate over the last two years or so. This is not the time to make a decision. I believe that there is consensus in the chamber for this to happen.
The government is very grateful that in relation to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 the Labor Party has backed in the national interest. We understand that that it's been a difficult debate and that some of the issues that Senator Patrick raises are issues that the Labor Party also had to work their way through. We are very grateful that ultimately the Labor Party's judgement is to back this legislation in because it's going to be good for Australia.
We're obviously not sitting next week—it's Senate estimates next week—and I think it's important for us as the Senate to deal with those two important pieces of legislation before we leave. I'm not going to hold the Senate up any longer because I want us to get to the debate as fast as we can so that Senator Patrick and others can ask questions about the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill and the legislation to implement tax cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses faster. I think it's important that we get on with it.
The Senate is a house of review—we're a house of review. Our job is not to be a rubber stamp for the executive. Our job is to scrutinise legislation. Our job is to slow down the pace of legislation, particularly when it is as far-reaching as some of the legislation that has been before this chamber.
Our job is not to work to a timetable dictated to by a by-election because you mob knifed your own Prime Minister and now have to face the consequences of it over the weekend. Our job is to be deliberative. Our job is to take our time. Our job is to scrutinise legislation, debate on the details of that legislation and then make considered decisions about it. That's what the role of the Senate is. We Greens take that role seriously. We take our role in scrutinising government legislation, particularly when it's legislation that this government wants to rush through at the eleventh hour on the eve of a by-election, very seriously.
Our role in this place is now being frustrated by the government, and it seems with the support of the Labor Party, for absolutely no reason other than to work to a timetable that is dictated to by a by-election and to help the Prime Minister stay in the Lodge for a few more months. I'm sorry, but we are not going to commit to reducing Australia's revenue base by $10 billion and spend less than an hour considering the implications of that.
One of the two bills that we're discussing today enables the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—another deal between the Liberals and the Labor Party to give more power to corporations, shut the community out and ensure that when it comes to protecting environment or public health, or indeed labour laws in this country, that we're handing over a blank cheque to huge multinationals. Yet, here we are looking to rush that legislation through at the eleventh hour because we've been dictated to by a Prime Minister who's more concerned about keeping his job than he is about looking after ordinary Australians.
And now we've got a second bill that's going to be rushed through in the next hour and a half that's going to cut taxes for companies with a turnover of up to $50 million. The government and the Labor Party are spruiking this as tax cuts for small business, but in no-one's definition is a threshold of up to $50 million a small business. These are significant medium-sized businesses—some of them large businesses—that need to make a contribution to the prosperity of this nation.
This tax cut won't take effect until July 2020, when the tax rate moves to 26 per cent; it will move to 25 per cent a year later. It's not this year; it's not next year; it's the year after that. Yet here we are rushing this legislation because the government wants to deliver certainty to small businesses, to medium sized businesses and to large businesses. It's two years out, and you're talking about certainty. You won't even be the government next year! You talk about certainty, and you're responsible for undermining certainty when it comes to some of the most significant businesses in this country. In the energy sector, where's the certainty? You've got no climate policy and no energy policy. You're undermining the only policy that's working at the moment, the Renewable Energy Target. You have been responsible for introducing massive uncertainty into the energy sector, and you've got the gall to talk about certainty for business. What a joke!
We're not going to see bakers making more bread tomorrow because you pass this legislation and rush it through the Senate in the next hour and a half without giving the opportunity for the Senate to do its job and scrutinise the legislation. There's not a single business that's going to employ one additional staff member because you rush through this bill in this time frame and move the company tax rate in two years time! Spare us the insults.
The reality is the government has decided that we will not uphold the important democratic principles on which this chamber is founded—that we are a house of review that exists to scrutinise government legislation, particularly those pieces of legislation that rip billions of dollars out of our schools and our hospitals. This is money that could be spent on increasing Newstart, addressing the homelessness crisis in this country, addressing domestic violence, closing the gap with Indigenous Australians, protecting the Great Barrier Reef, investing in climate change and addressing economic inequality in this country. Instead, you want to ram through a piece of legislation, with the support of the Labor Party, that rips billions of dollars from those areas we know desperately need it.
What's your argument? 'We've got to deliver certainty.' How remarkable! The only certainty you want to deliver is the certainty of knowing that you're shoring up your chance in the Wentworth by-election. That's the certainty you're after; it's not certainty for small business but certainty for your preselected candidate that is what you want. Do you seriously believe that a local cafe in Brisbane is going to stop making coffee if you don't pass this legislation without the scrutiny that it deserves within the next hour and a half? Do you seriously think that? Are you insulting our intelligence by doing what you're doing? Of course you are.
This isn't about being competitive on tax in 2021. It's about being competitive in Wentworth on Saturday. That's what it's about. The only reason we are being told to rush through this piece of legislation is that the Liberal Party dumped their Prime Minister. That's why we are being forced to rush it. That's what happens when you have a government governing for their own internal reasons rather than governing for the nation. Of course, we've had the latest iteration. You want to talk about certainty? How about the certainty of knowing who the Deputy Prime Minister of this country is. Let's start there. Here we are on the eve of a by-election with the prospect of Barnaby Joyce becoming the Deputy Prime Minister again. You are an embarrassment. You are an international embarrassment.
The world is looking at the Liberal Party right now and you have turned Australia into a laughing-stock. Now we're supposed to wave through a $10-odd billion hit to budget revenue because some focus group in Wentworth said it might help you shore up your chances there. There's a huge cost in doing what you are doing. You have demonstrated that you are prepared to trash our democracy when it's in your narrow political interest. That's what you've done. You've shown it time and time and time again. You've shown you don't care about democracy, you don't care about the way this chamber works. Only a few weeks ago you cancelled parliament because you were in an effort to roll the Prime Minister of this country. You've shown—when it comes to orchestrating raids on union offices and having the media there before anyone else—that you don't care about democracy. You've shown with your attacks on charities and other advocates that you don't care about democracy. You've shown with those massive corporate donations that line the pockets of the Liberal Party that you don't care about democracy. You've shown in your reluctance to support a national anticorruption watchdog that you don't care about democracy. You've shown in the way that you privilege lobbyists in this building, without any transparency, keeping the public out but keeping big business in, that you don't care about democracy in Australia.
Here we are with the motion before the Senate. Let's go to what that motion says. That motion says that within the next hour and 40 minutes we are going to debate the passage of two pieces of legislation, and in an hour and 40 minutes you will gag any further debate and we'll be forced to vote on it. We won't have the opportunity to talk about your promises around what these cuts to big business do. We won't be able to use the committee stage to interrogate the assumptions on which that policy is made. We won't be able to use the committee stage to talk about what the other options are for that $10 billion in revenue and what it could be used for.
Here we are, only a few weeks after a huge international report, the IPCC report, where nearly 100 scientists came together to sound a warning shot to the rest of the world—saying that if we don't transition our economy away from coal to renewables, we're going to lose our coral reefs; we're going to see more extreme weather; the drought that we're experiencing right now, that is crippling rural Australia, will become a regular phenomenon. Yet, you have a renewable energy sector riven with uncertainty because of the actions of this government, and you have the gall to talk about the need for certainty in the business community.
What does a tax cut do for the Great Barrier Reef? It does nothing. What does a tax cut do for those people who are sleeping rough tonight? It does nothing. What does a tax cut do for those people who can't put food on the table because Newstart condemns them to living in poverty? It does nothing. What does a tax cut do for those people on a hospital waiting list who are waiting to get their hip or knee replaced? It does nothing. What does a tax cut do for the 90 per cent of kids in public schools who won't get funding to the bare standard that they need? It does nothing. What does a tax cut do for those people who are fleeing domestic violence and can't get access to crisis accommodation? It does nothing. Yet, here we are with $10 billion ripped out of the services that we know need them and, in a desperate rush in the lead-up to the Wentworth by-election, a government, supported by the Labor Party, trashing our democracy and preventing the Senate from doing its job. We won't stand for it. We'll take this opportunity now and we'll continue to take it all the way up to the next election to highlight your hypocrisy and to highlight who you represent. You don't represent business in this country; you represent yourselves. This is a desperate pitch in the lead-up to the Wentworth by-election because you are so worried and so concerned that you're prepared to do and say anything in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Look at that disgraceful decision to consider relocating our embassy to Jerusalem. It was met with international condemnation. You're prepared to trash the relationship with some of our most important partners. You're prepared to side with One Nation.
Administrative errors!
I'll take that interjection from Senator Patrick. You're prepared to side with the racists and bigots in this chamber.
I object to that!
You're prepared to side with the racists and bigots in this chamber to support motions—
Please take a seat, Senator Di Natale.
I rise on a point of order. I object to being called racist.
Senator Di Natale, it would assist the chair if you could—
I didn't refer to anybody specifically. I said, 'You're prepared to side with the racists and bigots in this chamber.' People can draw their own inferences about who that was directed at. The reality is this is a government that's prepared to side with the racists and bigots in this chamber in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. We saw that only a few days ago when they supported that disgraceful motion that was presented in this chamber and cited as an administration error. There are no depths to which this government will not stoop. There are no depths to which they will not stoop. While we disagree, fundamentally, with Centre Alliance and Senator Patrick's support for the small business tax cuts, the one thing we do agree on is that the Senate should be allowed to do its job. While we disagree on many areas of policy, the one area that we do agree on—indeed, this is something shared by most members of the crossbench—is that we are elected here to hold governments to account regardless of their persuasion. Today, the political duopoly, the Coles and Woolies of politics, are locking us out. They are preventing us from doing our job.
We have two significant pieces of legislation before us. One piece is designed to facilitate a trade agreement that will hand over inordinate power to large corporations, that gives the power to corporations to sue governments for taking action to safeguard our environment and to protect public health. It's saying to mining companies, 'You can sue sovereign governments if they deny you a permit to exploit a particular resource.' It's saying to corporations, 'If you take action to protect the public health of our community, a corporation can now sue a sovereign government.' This is the sort of legislation that we are being prevented from scrutinising as a result of the decision of the Liberal Party with the support of the Labor Party.
We are about to have a debate in this country leading into an election around tax cuts. I fear that what we're going to see is this giveaway continue all the way to the next election—my tax cut is bigger than your tax cut. We need to know what the impact of those tax cuts is on our community. We need to know what a $10 billion tax cut does, what the opportunity cost is of ripping that money away from the essential public services that we know so desperately need them.
Again I say to you, and I urge the chamber: do not support this motion. I say this again directly to the Liberal Party: we understand what is driving the Liberal Party—desperation, clinging onto power, saving their hides. holding onto Wentworth. It's what's driven them to make those rash announcements in the lead-up to this by-election. But why on earth would the Labor Party be facilitating them in passing this motion that stops the Senate from doing its job?
I remind you again, and hope you have pause to reconsider supporting this motion: this chamber is not a rubber stamp. It is a house of review. We have been charged with an awesome responsibility by the Australian people to ensure that every bill that passes from the lower house to the Senate gets the due scrutiny it deserves. We need to slow down the pace of legislation to interrogate it, to examine unintended consequences—not to accelerate it, not to rush it through, not to jam it and ram it through, which is what this motion does.
We're supposed to be a democracy that ensures that both houses do their job. The role of the Senate is being frustrated by a government for no other reason than a desperate Prime Minister seeking to cling onto power. The Labor Party shouldn't facilitate them in doing that.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Patrick to omit paragraphs (b) and (c) be agreed to.
The question is that Senator Fifield's motion be agreed to.
I move amendment (1) on sheet 8521:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 1, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:
[commencement]
I've got some questions for the minister in relation to the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017. The judicial review bill brings about a right for companies to seek a review of a decision, or perhaps seek an injunction or compensation in respect of a procurement. I've got some questions in relation to the transitional arrangements from when the bill is passed, particularly in circumstances where there are procurements underway. I want to know whether or not the bill will cause an effect on current tenders that are in play—noting that there are requirements, for example, when deciding on whether a procurement ought to be a limited tender, an open tender or a sole source. Those sorts of decisions now have to be documented. If we now kick off with new laws, assuming they end up being passed, what does that do to the current tenders on foot?
My advice is that there are six months before this particular process starts, which we believe will give ample time for those matters on foot to be dealt with.
A company might be aggrieved by a tender process. One of the potential causes of an action may, in fact, be that first decision to go to a limited tender, to an open tender or to a sole source tender of some sort. The potentially aggrieved party may not have access to the decision reasoning and so may be blind as to whether or not they have a case. When the departments are making these decisions and writing their reasons, can you confirm whether those reasons will be made public? Alternatively, will they be accessible under FOI? Alternatively, does it require some sort of prediscovery in a court action to be able to get access to work out whether or not you have a bona fide case to bring in terms of a complaint?
My advice is that the conditions of a limited tender must be made public.
In the past what has happened is that, typically, tenders are made public. It is not always the case with limited tenders, but certainly it is the case with sole tenders because the way in which that is typically done is through AusTender. For example, in relation to the submarine project, the government made a decision to go to DCNS, the Japanese government and, indeed, to the Germans, the French and the Japanese. None of the tendering details appeared on AusTender. You might recall that, for example, I had to extract details of Future Frigate from the government like a dental surgeon by way of FOI. So when you say the documentation is available, I'm not exactly sure whether in fact it is. I'll just ask you to check.
I'm advised that, under item 2.6 of the tender rules, matters of national security are exempt from the requirement for disclosure.
Clearly, some of those tenders are really big tenders. They're for significant value contracts, often ranging into the billions. In fact, one would imagine that the companies that are tendering for those sorts of contracts would have capabilities to bring quite serious actions. What happens in that instance, noting that there is, in some sense, a carve-out here? I'm thinking of circumstances where an Australian company is tendering for a job and an overseas company is tendering for a job. The overseas company wins. The Australian company suspects there's a problem but doesn't have access to this information. How would the Australian company get around that, or would they simply be disadvantaged in those circumstances?
Obviously, we're talking about a specific area of carve-out for a specific reason in terms of national security, and often those carve-outs are part of international agreements. However, voluntarily, the Australian government will provide information where they don't believe that it is contrary to the national interest or national security.
Defence has a whole range of contracts. They might have contracts for fighter jets, but, equally, they have contracts for cleaning services and so forth. Do you say that you distinguish those contracts?
The international rules will distinguish between which types of contracts would sit underneath the exclusions or the carve-out on the basis of national security and those that wouldn't.
I understand that, whilst this legislation is an enabling piece of legislation for the TPP, it is Australian legislation in its own right. So, for an Australian company, there are no impacts from an international treaty perspective. It is simply Australian law. In that context, I don't understand why you mention international treaties. This is Australian legislation litigated in Australian courts with no connection to the TPP, other than it enables that agreement to enter into force.
My apologies. I thought I was responding to your question in relation to the Defence examples that you were raising. If that's not what you were talking about, perhaps you might be a little clearer about what the actual question is, because we were talking about Defence carve-out.
Okay; I'll move on. Currently this bill deals with covered procurements, and those procurements are typically procurements above $80,000. At this point in time it is possible for someone to be given a contract by way of sole source under $80,000. It's not a covered procurement in the context of this bill. But then what happens is, if I get into contract for $79,999 with the Department of Defence—and they can do that quite lawfully just by way of sole source—they can then give me another $200,000 contract on the basis that I am already in contract with them. I'm just wondering how that is handled in the context of someone who perhaps wanted to provide those services and now sees a contract that's got a value of $279,000, which would normally give cause for invoking this legislation. Does it allow them to invoke the legislation or is that a loophole in the arrangements?
I'm advised that you couldn't use this mechanism to bring the matter before the court. You cannot use the mechanism contained in this legislation to bring a matter in relation to something over the amount of $80,000 to court.
Some time ago, by way of a question on notice—I think it might have actually been former Senator Xenophon who asked the question—the department was asked to give examples of where there had been a contract let for under $80,000 and then a subsequent contract awarded to the same company using the fact that the procurement rules allow that to occur without tender. The response from the department was that it would take up so much time. That indicates to me that there are lots and lots of businesses that are working with Defence in those circumstances—that is, a small contract followed by a larger contract—and this is mostly in the small-business space. You're saying that this legislation does not give them a remedy in circumstances where they feel that the procurement decision is flawed?
I'm advised that the circumstance you described is one the agency believes is highly unlikely to exist. There is absolutely no incentive in public sector procurement for the public sector to be breaking down contracts into small amounts to try to avoid a level of scrutiny or legislative assessment. So the advice is that that situation is highly unlikely to ever occur.
Again, I will state that I have an answer from the department that says that it occurs so often that they are unable to provide the answer to the FADT committee. I, in a previous life, worked in this space, and it was very common that you would bring someone on. Whether properly or improperly, you would bring them on as a specialist service under $80,000, and once you were initially employed, quite lawfully, without tender, they simply extended the contract. That is common practice, I put to you.
Certainly there are circumstances where it obviously makes good economic and business sense for contracts to be handed out in a certain and particular way, but the suggestion that this is a mechanism that is used to evade scrutiny, I think, is contested.
Nonetheless—and I understand where you're coming from, Minister—you would appreciate that another company, sitting beside watching and thinking that they have an opportunity to provide the services perhaps at a better price or perhaps with greater knowledge or some quite genuine reason, may disagree with your characterisation and would normally have the choice to seek a remedy and even to test the proposition that you say is not the case. The whole point of this legislation is to give those small companies the right to say, 'I don't think that was done correctly, and I want it examined.'
The rules that the public sector has to operate under for these particular types of contracts are very overt in their statement that they are not allowed to use this rule in order to be able to do anything apart from something that would be in the benefit of the contract on the basis that it's a small-sized tender. So I think we may be arguing at cross purposes to some degree here. Your suggestion, we're saying, is that there is a balance being determined here, on the basis of good business sense, speed and efficiency but with a set of rules around it that overtly say you cannot do this in order to evade any level of scrutiny. So I suppose we can discuss this for some time, but I think we may have to agree to disagree, on the basis that we believe that the rules put in place the kinds of protections that we think are appropriate and relevant for the type of contract that we're talking about. I suppose that's the position of the government in relation to this particular matter.
I'm in agreement. I understand the government takes a strong position that that is not what happens. But I'd ask you to respect the view that other companies who are generally competing with entities where they see this occurring may be concerned about it. It causes a controversy, and this bill is designed to solve those controversies. As you would be well aware, when you have a department that is subject to judicial review, in some sense it tightens it down further and gives much more rigour to the processes. So my concern is that you're carving these out. I'm just wondering—because this does occur commonly—if there's any way in which we could have a situation where this bill could cover those circumstances in some way.
Thank you, Senator. I accept your comments, but we believe this is the appropriate way to do it. The vast bulk of procurement operates under this particular mechanism, and I draw your attention—without belabouring a point—to paragraph 9.5 of the Procurement Rules:
A procurementmust not be divided into separate parts solely for the purpose of avoiding a relevant procurement threshold.
Again I suspect someone may challenge that and claim that they have done that, but I'll leave it at that. The next question I have is: how do these rules interact with services panels? Once again, there's a requirement in here to allow review of contracts that may be awarded by our services panels. Indeed, there might be a circumstance where you have a company that is a participant in a panel and a company that's not a participant—an international company, even—which may cause rise to a controversy in that a company may say that they were not given a fair opportunity. So my first question is: does this bill apply to service panels as they are currently constructed? Indeed, can the fact that someone is not on a service panel give rise to an action under this bill?
Yes, it does apply to the panel. Action can be taken by someone in the process of trying to get onto the panel until the panel is operational. However, once the process of the establishment of the panel has been concluded and the panel is operational, at that point a non-panel member's opportunity to take action ceases.
I'm just trying to work out the mechanism, how this works, because there are many instances where someone becomes aware of a contract being awarded post facto—because it might not be the case that the tender is on AusTender. I'm wondering what the process is for a company that believes there's an action to be taken.
You've said clearly to me that tender documents are available on AusTender, except for the circumstances that you've mentioned, and I accept that. But there is a requirement now to document the actual decision to pick a particular type of procurement. You might say, 'I want to have a limited tender because I believe there are only three companies in the world that provide encryption and are trusted by our security agencies,' for example. How does someone who's outside of that—once again, it could be an international company—get access to the decision-making around that call for a limited tender that the department made? Can they do it via FOI, or is it simply made available as part of the tender package? Encryption might be a bad example, because that could be affected by security concerns. Maybe it's a company that has three specialised widgets. There are only three companies that can do that, and a limited tender goes out. But actually there's a fourth company, and they want to see how that decision-making was done.
My understanding is that any company, even if they're outside a limited tender, does have the opportunity to appeal to the department, to put forward their case that they should have been included in that tender. So they do have a remedy with the actual procuring department.
I apologise for not articulating this well. The burden of my question is that, in order to be able to appreciate that they can take an action under these provisions, they may need access to documentation to work that out: 'Actually, we have a bona fide case.' That's typically what happens in such a matter. You FOI a bunch of documents so that you can see what the department has done. Alternatively, you can go to a lawyer and seek prediscovery. Now, in those circumstances, obviously, you're dealing with a court order, and the department may have to capitulate. But is it likely that those sorts of decision documents would fall under one of the exemptions in the FOI Act?
Senator Patrick, without wanting to get into a very long debate with you about the operation of the judicial system and access to various sorts of documentation and the like, obviously, what we have here are rules and boundaries by which one can operate. If we remove all those boundaries and say it's a free-for-all—I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get to here, talking about a potential example or a hypothetical example of something happening. Do you have a specific example you wish to draw attention to, or is this just a legal argument for legal argument's sake?
It's a genuine question. I'm the director of company A; Senator Storer is the director of company B. I am awarded a limited tender contract. Senator Storer feels aggrieved by that because he thought there was something to offer. In order to bring an action, he has to show that the department has in some way breached the Commonwealth procurement rules. He can't do that by simply saying, 'I feel this is unfair.' He needs access to documents that might show that they didn't consider something relevant or they've not properly gone to market to find companies that provide the sorts of services that both my company and Senator Storer's company provide. The point is that you can't actually commence an action unless you've got access to the decision-making and the process by which the department made the decision. Is it wholly and solely that Senator Storer has to guess and pay lawyers to get discovery? Will he be able to get access to that freely because it's on the web somewhere or, alternatively, via FOI?
You have probably a greater understanding of the FOI Act than many of us in here, but there is obviously a balance between the procurement rules that exist around how we operate with procurement and making sure that the rules are applied in such a way that would mitigate against this kind of thing happening in the first place. Obviously, if a government agency decides to go for a limited tender, they would do so in the belief that they have been able to clearly define who was available or who within that marketplace it was appropriate to seek that tender from. The rules state that there must never be any intention to exclude somebody who otherwise might have been an appropriate source for that particular procurement.
In terms of FOI and the access to particular pieces of information and the like, there are obviously rules around commercial in confidence and the commercial documentation. To go back to your previous discussions in relation to Defence et cetera, there will be a series of other things that sit around decisions about what information might or might not be available in a particular process. I think, if you put those two side by side, there is a level of safety mechanism in place that would suggest that, first of all, it's highly unlikely that this situation would occur in the first place, and, if it did, it would have to be determined on the merit of the particular action on the basis of whether the information being sought was something that was actually going to prejudice another party to this particular contract because of the commercial nature of the information that was being sought.
I'll move on now to a slightly different topic. One of the remedies a company can seek is an injunction on the Commonwealth to pause the activity. For example, when a preferred tenderer has been selected and the government is negotiating a contract with that preferred tenderer, if a second or a third party perhaps comes along and says, 'I wish to seek an injunction,' that could create all sorts of problems for the Commonwealth in its procurement process. The government department may actually be slowed down by injunctions from the courts. The act actually allows for a public interest certificate to be issued—in some sense, trying to make sure that that doesn't happen. I'm just trying to understand how that mechanism would work. What is considered to be in the public interest? Who determines that? How does that certificate process work?
I'm advised that the guidelines around providing guidance in terms of the development of the public interest certificate are currently with the Attorney-General and the Department of Finance to develop the details around that particular instrument.
Will those be made public?
Yes.
To close off on this line of questioning—I do have some more questions—I'm wondering about circumstances where you have a project that a department is running that may involve multiple different contract streams because each contributor to the project has different skills and different services they can provide. Let's say you have five elements of a project. On element No. 5 an action is invoked and an injunction is placed on that contract, on that particular procurement. The other four are underway and may be reliant on No. 5 in some way. Is it the intention that, in those circumstances, the Commonwealth will compensate the other four companies, who will end up being delayed in the execution of their contracted obligations and, in fact, in some sense would end up being penalised for something completely outside of their control? How does the Commonwealth intend to handle that?
I'm advised that contract management issues are not covered by this bill.
I want to reflect on this bill in terms of the amendments that are being put regarding the TPP-11 and in terms of the process of the passing of notice of motion this morning. In terms of that process, I think it's disappointing that there will be a cut-off of debate of this bill, and of the following bill, at 11.45. This does not accord with the discussion that happened regarding the personal income tax legislation in May. There was a lot of grievance held by the Labor Party with regard to that gag motion on that day, and I didn't get to speak on my amendment on that day as well.
I am a supporter of measures that increase opportunities for trade and commerce between Australia and the rest of the world, but I have significant concerns regarding the economic benefit of the legislation that was passed yesterday in terms of the lack of independent modelling of it and the likelihood of an overall positive outcome of Australia's involvement in that agreement. There are significant concerns regarding the ISDS and I see that they're reflected in the amendments that certainly will be put at 11.45 in regard to this bill itself.
The ISDS has significant issues that have been eloquently discussed by speakers here yesterday and the previous days. I am very concerned about the lack of independent analysis of the potential impacts on the Australian labour market of the removal of labour market testing for temporary migrant workers from those TPP-11 countries. I will certainly be looking very carefully at the amendments to be made regarding this bill and then the overall economic situation that Australia is in. That's important in terms of other legislation that will be looked at in this place.
As I mentioned yesterday, even former Treasurer Peter Costello has noted the concern regarding the government debt. He noted that overall net debt was so high that he thought he would be dead before it was paid off. Yet with regard to the intention to bring forward the company tax cuts for companies with a turnover of $50 million, the Treasurer has revealed that there will be no savings to match the estimated cost of $3.2 billion over the forward estimates. At least the Labor Party have announced that it would help meet this cost by delaying the implementation of its Australian investment guarantee legislation.
The last time this discussion of company tax was before the Senate, I opposed it based on the best evidence to date, which found that the corporate tax cuts already in place have had little impact on wages and a small effect on jobs and investment. I found this out from the AlphaBeta Advisors review of the 2014 tax cuts for companies of under $2 million. They found that there was a marginal increase in employment versus the increase for firms above that threshold, where there was a limited increase in wages and there was a slight increase in investment. It seems to me, in regard to Australia's desire for economic growth, jobs and wages, that there would alternative, wiser initiatives that could be done—for example, an instant access tax write-off, an expansion of R&D concessions that were limited in the last budget or spending more on infrastructure, which the ministers have indicated creates a significant increase in GDP and a longstanding benefit.
There are also issues, in terms of analysis by Deloitte Access Economics, regarding a significant increase to Newstart and related payments that would deliver a prosperity dividend of $4 billion to the Australian economy, as well as having a very tightly targeted fairness impact, with the overwhelming bulk of the relevant increase in disposable incomes going to Australia's lowest-income families. I think that legislation, such as that which will be dealt with, is piecemeal and narrow. We should be looking at a more broad-based tax reform. We had the Henry review with its seven principle feature reforms pass 10 years ago, yet we're only dealing with one of those principle features and we have the architecture in place for it.
With regard to this bill, I will certainly be looking very carefully at the amendments and also the other bills in terms of what is in the best interests of Australia's overall economic situation and for the people and the taxpayers who we serve.
Just before I do pass on the call, I wish to deal with Senator Patrick's amendment that is in front of us. Hence, that's why I call Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson, did you wish to ask questions around this amendment?
Yes, just one or two questions—that's all. I just want clarification on it. The law at the moment is that multinationals who don't get the tender cannot challenge it in the court system—is that correct?
I am advised that, like any other business, they can challenge that through the courts.
If that is the case, then why this bill? You need to actually explain to me, because my understanding is that, at the moment, multinationals who don't get a tender cannot actually go for a review in the judicial system.
The primary legislation gives Australian businesses access to trade agreements overseas and, similarly, international companies will have reciprocal access to trade agreements into Australia.
Minister, you know that is not the question I have asked. I have asked you directly: if multinationals do not get a tender, can they challenge that in our court system at the moment?
My understanding is that, under the current system, any company has recourse to challenge under the Australian court system. However, what this bill seeks to do is provide greater protections and greater assistance to small businesses to make sure that they have the kind of access and remedy that would be appropriate.
Then I'd like you to answer the question. If you have a local government, a state government or even a federal government that offers a tender in which only Australian companies or Australian workers are wanted to fill those jobs, can a multinational company challenge that tender under your new bill, which you want to pass here? Can they challenge that in the court system, because they are not an Australian company?
I'm advised that under these rules you cannot overturn a contract once it has been let. So the answer is no.
So you're saying that a contract can't be overturned. What I'm saying is: if a local, state or federal government says, 'We want only Australian companies to provide the services to us; we want to do those jobs with Australian workers,' can multinationals challenge that? If they put in a tender, can they then challenge governments by saying: 'We have been discriminated against. We have been unfairly treated. We are now going to challenge you under this new legislation in the judicial court system'? At the moment, I understand they can't.
Senator, my understanding is that, as it currently stands, any company can challenge that decision. What this legislation seeks to do is change the process by which that can occur to provide greater protections for small businesses. So the answer to your question is, yes, it can occur. It currently can occur.
In other words, under the process whereby they're protected at the moment, you're going to allow them an avenue to take it to the judicial system and so the judicial system can actually override it. If they override it, can the judicial system then require compensation to be paid?
I'll try and see if I can be clear in my answer, because I think maybe we're a bit at cross-purposes. There is a system in place which allows a certain recourse from any company, no matter who they are, within our court system in relation to a pre-contract letting situation. Nothing changes in terms of once a contract has been let; it is not able to be challenged. What we're seeking to do by this legislation is increase the level of protection, particularly around small businesses, so that in the situation where they may be seeking remedy because they believe that they've been wronged or where they're challenging the decision pre the letting of the contract, they will have access to do that in such a way that probably gives greater advantage to them. This bill does not seek to actually change what you're talking about. You're talking about the legal rights of businesses within the contractual system that operates within Australia and around the world. That is not what this bill is seeking to change.
But what you're saying is that this will open it up under the TPP, because this is enabling legislation for the TPP. Therefore, it is going to allow multinationals to challenge it in the court system. You're going to open up the court system now to multinationals to challenge it and, possibly, even challenge for compensation to be paid for by the taxpayers.
The very basis of a trade arrangement that you enter into with another country is to enhance the economic benefit to both of the countries by allowing freer access to the other country's economy to trade with it. Equally, Australian companies will be afforded the same access and the same privilege in the countries that we are seeking to trade with. Overall, obviously, the Australian government is of the view that we've seen such extraordinary success for the farmers, whom I know you're very much supporting, as am I, from the trading agreements that we've put in place and the benefits that are delivered from that. The government has made a clear assessment, through a series of appropriate tools and modelling, that the benefit to Australia of these free trade agreements and everything that goes with them is in the national interest. So, in anything that you're prosecuting, if you suggest that there is any change on this side of the equation within Australia, the benefits are delivered to our businesses who are seeking to trade and send our goods to their countries.
Australia is an exporting nation. We're not ever going to get rich selling to ourselves. It is tremendously important that governments put in place the market mechanisms by which we can enable our farmers and our businesses to trade with the rest of the world. Part of that arrangement is allowing our friendly partners to have access to our marketplace to provide the goods and services that the Australian public often demands. I don't mean to sit here giving you a lecture on free trade. Obviously, you've got your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that the Australian government believes that these free trade arrangements are in the best interests of Australian producers, Australian businesses and the Australian public.
I've just got a couple of questions to the minister. I've just heard the minister speak about the need for these trade arrangements because they are in the best interests of Australian business. I'd just like to ask, while we've got the minister and some advisers here, whether it is in the best interests of Australia's trade for Australia to be moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and whether there have been any concerns raised directly with the government, as reported, from countries in our region, like Indonesia and Malaysia, in relation to the impact on our trading arrangements because of this decision to move Australia's embassy to Jerusalem. I've asked the question of the minister and I would like an answer.
I will give the minister an opportunity. Minister? Are there any further questions?
Just directly in relation to the bill that we're dealing with, the jurisdiction in which you would raise an application in this instance would be the Federal Circuit Court. The Federal Circuit Court is, in actual fact, having some difficulties, certainly in terms of family law matters and migration matters in the general division. Has the government looked at the resourcing that might be required in respect of this legislation? Are you anticipating that additional resources will be required in the Federal Circuit Court?
I'm advised that the Federal Circuit Court has been given additional resources specifically for this.
Chair, I just want to go back to my line of questioning. I'd like to know whether the minister is refusing to answer the question or whether she just does not know. I've asked a question about whether trading concerns have been raised with Australia, with the government or with any officials from Indonesia or Malaysia, as reported.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister?
It's obvious that the minister is refusing to answer the question. We have the ambassador for Israel in Barnaby Joyce's office right now. That's what's been reported. The ambassador for Israel is in Barnaby Joyce's office. Is that because there are concerns about the impact of our trading relationships with countries that are opposed to moving our embassy to Jerusalem, or is it that Mr Joyce is actually getting the support outside this parliament—
A point of order: the question from Senator Hanson-Young has got nothing to do with the amendment before this chamber. It's got nothing to do with whether the embassy is going to Jerusalem or not. That is not what is before this chamber. With limited time, I suggest we go back to the bill before us and ask questions on that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Could the minister please explain what the ambassador for Israel is doing in Mr Joyce's office? Is it because he's soon to become the Deputy PM?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, I will make a ruling there: that is not relevant to the amendment in front of the Senate at the moment. I give the call to Senator Patrick.
Minister, thank you for your last answer in relation to the courts. Could you provide, perhaps on notice, details of the additional resources that have been allocated?
I'm advised that $2.9 million has been made available in additional funding.
I will point out that I'm disturbed about the previous answer, where you talked about the five companies, with one company being dragged into the courts and the other four ending up being affected. I think that's something the government ought to consider very carefully, because a lot of those companies will be small businesses unable to bear the cost of simply running project teams on for lengthy periods while a court matter is dealt with.
I want to go to the intersection between the judicial review of a procurement and its interaction with ISDS. I note that ISDS provisions are only available to foreign companies here in Australia, as Assistant Minister Reynolds told me yesterday. If an international company makes an application under this bill and it is litigated, and they are unsuccessful, does that waive their right to then raise an ISDS claim against the government that might be closely related to the matter that has been determined in the court?
I've been advised that, for the ISDS provisions to be invoked, the procurement needs to be considered to be an investment, and the majority of procurements would not be seen to be an investment. And the investments are those investments that are covered and specified within the treaty. So your issue in terms of the waiving of the right to access ISDS is perhaps not relevant in this case.
In legalese: it's not so much a waiving but it might not give rise to an action in ISDS as opposed to waiving any particular right. It's unlikely that there would be circumstances that would give rise to an application.
Senator, unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I think we might be talking about two different things. The action we're talking about in terms of a procurement damage could probably not occur under the investment. A capital procurement has a different set of remedies than an investment under the ISDS provisions. Am I misunderstanding what you're asking me?
I think you might have actually answered my question. If I understand you correctly, they can perhaps litigate a procurement matter under this bill. It's unlikely that they would be able to litigate a similar action under ISDS because the ISDS doesn't generally cover procurements. Is that correct?
That is correct. That's what I was saying.
I wish to put the Labor Party's position in respect of this amendment on the record. As the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill has passed, the amendment outlined on sheet 8521, which is an attempt to delay the implementation of this bill, is mostly redundant. Changing the date from the proclamation to the same time as the other bill receives royal assent will create uncertainty for businesses. Labor will not support this.
I would like to put on the record the Australian Greens position on this amendment. We will support the amendment. However, our position on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill, which has been made clear by my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, is that is we won't support this legislation because it is, again, a further measure to implement an unfair trade deal that hands over far too much power to large corporations and removes power from governments to protect the environment and public health.
I also want to take this opportunity to put on the record that we are now 10 minutes away from the guillotine being adopted without any opportunity to debate a further bill that would rip $3 billion out of essential public services and give a huge tax cut to business. We didn't have the opportunity to even give a second reading speech to put our objections formally on the record because the Liberal Party, with the support of the Labor Party, have prevented us from doing that in a remarkable act, an attack on democracy in this chamber. You do not have the guts or the decency to allow the crossbench to articulate our opposition and, indeed, to interrogate a bill that would hand over $3 billion to businesses.
Let's keep this very, very simple. We talk about the opportunity cost of a spending decision, which is the lost opportunity to do something with the money you're spending and how much that's worth. Let's actually talk about the opportunity cost of the legislation that we're being prevented from debating. Here's what this bill, which you won't allow us to debate in this chamber and are seeking to ram through without any scrutiny, does. It brings forward a tax cut worth $3 billion over the forward estimates. But here's what it doesn't do. Earlier this month, we got news from the IPCC that we're on track to lose 90 per cent of all coral reefs on the planet in the next 20 years. People come from all around the world to see the Great Barrier Reef, because you can't see anything like it anywhere else. It's worth billions to the economy. It's worth over 60,000 jobs a year, and it could be dead, could be gone, in 20 years.
What does the Great Barrier Reef get out of a tax cut? Absolutely nothing. Nine in 10 public schools are on track to never get the funding they need in order to educate students from right across the country, many of them from disadvantaged backgrounds, living with a disability or living in remote and regional communities. Those students won't get the bare minimum of funding they need; nine out of 10 of them will not get the minimum standard that we've agreed. No school ever got funded out of a tax cut. We've got 100,000 people in Australia, including 18,000 kids, who are homeless. No homeless shelter was ever built out of a tax cut. At least five women have been killed by their current or former partners since the beginning of the month. According to White Ribbon, one woman is killed by her current or former partner on average every week in Australia. Let's not beat around the bush. This is as much an economic issue as it is one of justice. Women, particularly younger women with kids, who don't have anything in savings, who aren't working or who are relying on income from an abusive partner, are being let down by economic inequality. They're crying out for our support, they're being killed every week, they're asking for help, and what are we doing? We're giving $3 billion in tax cuts. You don't open family crisis shelters with a tax cut.
Indigenous children today are twice as likely to die before their fourth birthday than non-Indigenous children. Indigenous men make up less than two per cent of the overall population and 25 per cent of the prison population. It's a national disgrace. It's an indictment on this place. It should embarrass everybody. It should shake us into action. Yet we're missing four out of our seven Closing the Gap targets. Do we think they're going to be met with this tax cut? Or do we think it's going to be harder to close the gap because of this tax cut? Well, we know the answer to that question. That's just a fraction of the opportunity cost involved in handing over this tax cut. It's not just the budget cost of bringing forward a tax reduction. It's the human cost of what we're forced to do and the things we can't afford to pay for, to invest in, because of the decision of this chamber, and you don't have the guts to ensure that it gets the scrutiny it deserves.
We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We are at the wealthiest point in human history. We've got the resources and the means to guarantee that all Australians get an opportunity to lead a rich and fulfilling life. Instead of doing that, you're here facilitating the passage of legislation to hand over more power to corporations—to take the power from governments to ensure that they can protect their citizens and protect their environment. And you're now, without debate, about to give $3 billion to companies who don't need it. A company with a turnover of $50 million is not a small business.
This is a massive transfer of wealth. At a time when economic inequality in this country is getting worse, at a time when our environment has never been more precarious, here we are with the Liberal Party and the Labor Party joining together to continue with this crap that we've been fed for more than three decades. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. Invest in people. What's good for big business isn't automatically good for people. You've presided over an economic system where big companies write their own policies. We've got the business industry writing this tax policy for you. We've got the coal industry writing energy policy. We've got media companies writing our media laws. And here we are with the duopoly, Liberal and Labor, joining together to prevent any debate so that the Australian community can understand what is being done in their name. The foundations of a decent society are not built through this war, this escalation, this auction on tax cuts—my tax cut is bigger than your tax cut; billions of dollars handed over to companies that don't need it.
There are so many other things that we can do for small business. There's the instant asset write-off. Again, the Greens led the charge on that, but we don't believe that taking revenue away from Newstart, from our schools and from our hospitals is the pathway to a more decent or, indeed, a more prosperous society. We're a party that believes in the public good. We believe in public ownership. We believe in investing in our essential services which are the foundations of a decent society. We believe in protecting the environment—clean air, clean water, clean energy and clean politics. And, today, what we're seeing is dirty politics, with the duopoly ganging up again, preventing meaningful debate on an issue that the Australian community have a right to hear about.
So let me just say in closing that we oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership and we're appalled that the Labor Party would back in a Liberal Party that wants to do the bidding of its big corporate mates. We oppose these huge tax cuts that are going to businesses that don't need them, that are going to big businesses with a turnover of $50 million. What we support is investing that money in our schools, in our hospitals, in ensuring that people don't need to live beneath the poverty line, in supporting women who are living through domestic violence at the hands of an abusive partner and in ensuring that people who are sleeping rough can get a roof over their heads. It's not the government or the budget that are paying for this tax cut; it's those people who are being left behind who are paying for this tax cut.
I just want to put on the record that One Nation will not be supporting the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017. The fact is that it is enabling the TPP-11 trade agreement, which we do oppose. The fact is that I have grave concerns that, with this change, it can be challenged in the court system by multinationals. I don't believe it's in the best interest of Australian businesses. There is talk about trade deals and that we've got the same arrangement overseas. I then challenge them to answer why the New Zealand Prime Minister had a side letter to omit the ISDS clause with some countries.
There's nothing here with the other bill. I'm sorry to say that it didn't happen in this chamber that we had the opportunity to talk on the taxation bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill. It was One Nation that negotiated with the government and the crossbenchers to get it up from a $10 million turnover to a $50 million turnover, which we supported. The Labor Party have backflipped on this and this is why they don't want the debate in the chamber. It's because the Labor Party only wanted it at a $2 million turnover. They were not supporting small or medium-sized businesses at all. So it is a flip-flop. It is a backflip by the Labor Party. They accuse me of flip-flopping. I'll tell you what—this is the biggest flip-flop from the Labor Party on taxation.
As I said at the time when we supported it, I question why it was so far down the track. If it's such a good deal for small and medium-sized businesses, why is it taking so long to actually introduce the bill? So I'm pleased to see that it is being introduced. I would personally have liked to see some help in the payroll tax of all the states to increase the threshold. I believe that would have created more employment than the corporate tax cuts. I had a meeting and a discussion with international CEOs of big companies, huge companies, from around the world. They said they weren't interested in corporate tax cuts. They were more interested in dealing with industrial relations, plus also payroll tax, which is more important to them and would have created more employment than this corporate tax cut. So it's a shame that it couldn't be debated at all.
Also, under this bill, I don't believe that you, the government, are addressing the multinationals that are not paying their taxes in this country. We have over 700 companies in Australia that are not paying their taxes here. You've opened up the TPP agreement now, so we're going to see more companies here in Australia. You're encouraging them to come and invest here, but you are not fighting for them to pay their taxes in Australia. I believe that is a crying shame.
It being 11.45, the time allotted for the consideration of the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018 has expired. I will first put the question in respect of the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8521, moved by Centre Alliance, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the amendments on sheets 8534 and 8535, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8524, circulated by Centre Alliance, be agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question now is that amendments 1 to 4 on sheet 8852, circulated by the Australian Conservatives and the Liberal Democratic Party, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Pursuant to notice given on 17 October 2018, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5, standing in my name for 5 December 2018, proposing disallowance of the Adult Disability Assessment Determination, the Criminal Code, the Federal Circuit Court Amendment and the Migration Amendment.
While I'm on my feet, pursuant to notice given on 17 October 2018, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion Nos 1 to 4, standing in my name for 29 November 2018, proposed disallowance of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment, the Australian Radiation and Protection Nuclear Safety licence charges, the financial Framework Amendment and the Financial Framework Amendment (Foreign Affairs and Trade Measures No.1).
I present the 12th report 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. 12 OF 2018
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 7.40 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 November 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 November 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 November 2018 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Excise Tariff Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at Manufacture) Bill 2018
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Customs Tariff Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018
I move:
That the report be adopted.
The opposition has asked that several of these bills be referred to a committee for inquiry. I want to outline to the Senate some of the reasons behind these referrals.
The first bills that the Labor Party has asked to be referred to the committee for inquiry are the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018. Since the Liberals have come to office they've only had one plan for higher education: cuts and making students pay more, sooner. While Labor is cautiously supportive of this legislation, we want to refer it to an inquiry to make sure the policy settings are right and fair for universities as well as for students. This bill would charge higher education providers, including Australia's 39 public universities, to access Australia's world-class student loan scheme—HELP, the Higher Education Loan Program. This was never the intention of the original income-contingent loan scheme, HECS, and appears to be part of the government's attempts to find savings in the higher education portfolio. The related bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018, introduces a small charge to higher education providers who apply to access the FEE HELP scheme for their students.
While the changes in both bills look relatively benign, Labor have some concerns that we want the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee to examine. Importantly, we don't want new charges to become excessive; nor do we want to see charges flow on to students. Australian students already pay the sixth-highest university fees in the OECD, and in the last year the government introduced more punitive changes to the repayment threshold of HELP, forcing students to pay back loans when they're earning $45,000—only $9,000 more than the minimum wage. Because of the Liberals' cuts, universities are under huge pressure. The 2017 MYEFO decision to re-cap undergraduate places is going to hit universities particularly hard in 2019, and we'll see thousands of Australians miss out on a university place. As many as 235,000 could miss out by 2031, according to the Mitchell Institute. I seek to move the amendment, as circulated in the chamber, in the name of Senator Collins.
I move an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Collins, as circulated in my name in the chamber, which relates to the referral of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018 to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 7 November 2018. To be clear, we are happy for this to be done on the papers. We know it's a tight turnaround. The next chance to consider the bill is the week beginning 12 November, so it won't delay the passage of the bill—and, if the committee is so minded, we're prepared for it to be done on the pages.
Mr President, I don't have a copy of Senator Collins' amendment relating to the higher education bill.
No, you're quite right. I just made that observation during Senator Siewert's contribution. We don't have an amendment related to the education bill. Could you read out the amendment while we get it circulated, Senator Urquhart?
It's not on the education bill. My speech did talk about the education bill, but the amendment was about the committee reporting date for the Treasury laws bill. At the request of Senator Collins, I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
"but, in respect of the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 3 December 2018".
There was some confusion about the amendment, based on your speech. Thank you. Senator Siewert has moved an amendment to Senator Collins' amendment. I'm going to put the question on Senator Siewert's amendment to Senator Collins' amendment first.
Mr President, Senator Siewert's amendment is not an amendment to Senator Collins' amendment as moved by Senator Urquhart.
I'm not blessed with copies of them at the moment. I'm going by hearing.
Senator Siewert's amendment seeks to amend the report.
by leave—I would like to assist the Senate. There is clearly a level of confusion on the basis that some amendments haven't been circulated, and some amendments to amendments are not entirely clear. To assist the Senate, could we get back to the Selection of Bills Committee report at the end of motions?
With the leave of the Senate, we'll do it after postponements.
Debate adjourned.
Does any senator wish to have the question put on any proposal?
by leave—On behalf of the government, I indicate that we will not be supporting the postponement of notice of motion No. 1166 in the name of Senator Anning in relation to a bill proposing to introduce a plebiscite restricting non-European migration. The government strongly oppose this bill. We do not want to see it proceed in any way.
Australia has a very proud track record over many, many decades now of welcoming people to Australia from all corners of the world, from a whole range and broad variety of backgrounds. That has made Australia a richer, a better and a stronger country. We pride ourselves on being a country where every migrant who chooses Australia to become there home, who works hard and who makes a contribution, is warmly welcomed. We don't believe that we in Australia should go back to what is reflected in this bill. It is important for the Senate to express that very firmly today, and that is why the government will be opposing this proposed postponement.
by leave—I indicate that the opposition will be opposing this postponement. It is an unusual step to be opposing a postponement, but in this case the opposition is of the view that it is warranted. The short title of the bill, for senators' information, is the Introduction of Plebiscite (Restricting Non-European Migration) Bill 2018. That is all the Senate needs to know about this bill. The difficulty with allowing the postponement is that it would then sit on the papers of the Senate until we return on 12 November. This is our concern with allowing the postponement. We shouldn't allow a matter of this character to sit on the papers and for people looking at the business of the Senate to misunderstand the view of the Senate.
As Senator Cormann indicated, the government and, most certainly, the opposition do not support the sentiments reflected in this bill. Australia left behind the White Australia policy 50 years ago, and it should remain well in the past. Labor will always support a non-discriminatory immigration policy and recognise the rich contribution migrants from all nations have made to our multicultural country. We welcome other parties taking this same approach.
by leave—I just want to ascertain whether the government and the opposition are going to oppose the postponement, with the intention of opposing the introduction of the bill. All I'm seeking is whether that's their intention to pursue.
We're not opposing the introduction. We want this dealt with today, and the government's intention and, I believe, the opposition's intention and the intention of others around the chamber is to vote against the first reading of the bill.
That was my concern. It would be almost unprecedented not to allow the introduction of a bill.
by leave—The Greens will not be supporting this postponement. We reiterate the comments of the government and the Labor Party. The quicker this bill is dealt with and consigned to the dustbin of history the better. There is no place to debate such racist, xenophobic, hate-filled bills in this parliament. In his short time in this parliament, we've seen Senator Anning treat it as though it is some sort of opportunity to sprout hatred, racism and, indeed, white supremacy. He has caused harm and offence to the Muslim community, to the Jewish community, and today seeks to extend that harm to anyone who doesn't come from an Anglo-European background. I look at my team and I think of the message that you have just sent to the members of my team and the contempt and disrespect that you have shown them and indeed many millions of Australians right around the country. We rarely come together as a parliament to condemn the actions of a senator but we abhor this race to the bottom that we seem to be engaged in. We simply reiterate the views of the government and the Labor Party, and the Greens now, who stand as one to make a very clear statement—that legislation of this nature has no place in a modern, multicultural nation like Australia.
As a relative newcomer here, I know that it is against the so-called rules to oppose the introduction of a bill and anybody at all should be able to introduce a bill. I will certainly support Labor, the government and the Greens on opposing the postponement of this bill, but I also want to say that on this occasion I oppose the introduction of this bill, because we are reaching a stage here now, as alluded to by the leader of the Greens, that you could put anything offensive in the title of your bill—I'm introducing a bill that says 'Da-de-dah; ban so-and-so'; all that sort of stuff. Having it sitting there on the Notice Paper, as Senator Collins said, for weeks and weeks is a foul thing, is wrong and is a hint back to the White Australia policy. For one, I'll oppose the introduction of the bill, let alone the postponement of it.
Question negatived.
I will briefly return now, because we have clarity on the selection of bills issue. The amendment from Senator Siewert is about a different bill but it is an addition to the amendment of Senator Collins to effectively add something to the amendment of Senator Collins.
I'm speaking on the amendment very briefly, to help clarify matters. There are two ways that amendments could be moved here. One is to amend a particular section of the report to be dealt with as a discrete item to be voted upon, and then for amendments to other sections of the report to be moved as separate items. Senator Siewert has chosen to seek to move an amendment on an unrelated matter, which I think is causing the confusion, but, to follow the path that has been chosen, I move the following amendment unrelated to the previous two amendments:
At the end of the motion, add:
"and in respect of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, the bill not be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report."
Your amendment is a foreshadowed amendment to Senator Siewert's amendment to Senator Collins's amendment, because it is contrary?
I'm following the path that my preceding colleagues have chosen.
For clarity, that's the way we've been advised for a long time and that's what the practice has been. It is always confusing. Maybe what we should be doing is clarifying the way we approach amendments so that we're not amending an amendment like that when we're talking about the selection of bills.
I'm conscious that we're in a time-limited part of debate today, so I will put Senator Fifield's amendment first.
Question agreed to.
That negates Senator Siewert's amendment, so I'm not going to put Senator Siewert's amendment now. The question is that Senator Collins' amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be adopted.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That:
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; 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.
Question agreed to.
I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business. Given the Senate's vote denying the postponement of notice of motion No. 1166, I will move immediately to that matter. Senator Anning, we're moving to notice of motion No. 1166, as the Senate has determined not to allow its postponement.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Just on the comments around the room earlier, the bill only asks for a plebiscite to give the Australian people a say in who comes to this country. I can't think of anything more democratic than that, but apparently everyone else in this room can. I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for a plebiscite at the next general election in relation to migration to Australia and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question negatived.
At the request of Senator Collins, I move:
That:
(1) The development of a foreign influence transparency scheme to apply to parliamentarians, be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report with particular reference to:
(a) the imposition of transparency obligations similar to those imposed by the scheme established in accordance with the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018,
(b) the timetable for the implementation of the executive’s scheme;
(c) the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security relating to the introduction of a parallel scheme adapted to the parliamentary environment; and
(d) any other matter.
(2) The committee consult with the equivalent committee in the House of Representatives with the aim of agreeing a single parliamentary foreign influence transparency scheme to apply uniformly, together with uniform processes for its implementation for members and senators.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion is consistent with recommendation 29 of the PJCIS advisory report on the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018. That recommendation requested that the House of Representatives and the Senate deliver a parallel parliamentary foreign influence transparency scheme to the one the government is in the process of establishing.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Pratt, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of March 2019:
The effectiveness of the current temporary skilled visa system in targeting genuine skills shortages, with particular reference to:
(a) the interaction between the temporary skilled visa system and the system in place for training Australian workers, including how a skills shortage is determined;
(b) the current skills assessment regime, including but not limited to, the correct application of ANZSCO codes and skills testing requirements;
(c) the relationship between workers on skilled visas and other types of visas with work rights, including the rationale and impact of the 400 visa;
(d) the effectiveness of the current labour market testing arrangements;
(e) the adequacy of current skilled visa enforcement arrangements, with particular regard to wages and conditions and access to information about rights and protections;
(f) the use and effectiveness of labour agreements; and
(g) related matters.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senators Farrell and Moore, I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that it is 50 years since one of Australia's greatest athletes, Mr Peter Norman, won silver in the 200 metres at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, in a time of 20 seconds, which remains the Australian and Oceania record;
(b) acknowledges the courageous stand Mr Norman took when he borrowed an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge, and stood on the podium alongside gold medallist Mr Tommie Smith and bronze medallist Mr John Carlos, in support of their famous stand for racial equality; and
(c) notes that in 2012, the House of Representatives unanimously carried a motion moved by the Member for Fraser, Mr Leigh, that saw the national Parliament apologise posthumously to Mr Norman for the way he was treated upon his return, and the failure to fully recognise inspiring action.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Fifty years ago, Australian Peter Norman won silver in the 200 metres at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. In the half-century since, no Australian has run faster. His time of 20.06 seconds is still our national record. At the medal ceremony, African American runners Tommie Smith, gold, and John Carlos, bronze, told Norman they planned to bow their heads and put their fists in the air in support of human rights. He stood with them in a moment that was to become iconic in the human rights movement and in sporting history. Peter Norman died in 2006. Today his actions symbolise the opportunities we have for a Peter Norman moment in our lives and still set a great example to those of us who can take a stand against racism and inequality.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Dean Smith, move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) 28 October 2018 is National Grandparents Day,
(ii) in Australia, there are tens of thousands of grandparents who take on the role as primary carers for their grandchildren in circumstances where parents are unwilling or unable to do so, and
(iii) in many cases, these grandparents take on this role at great emotional, financial and physical cost, at a time when they should be enjoying their retirement;
(b) reaffirms the findings of the 2014 report of the Community Affairs References Committee on grandparents who take primary responsibility for raising their grandchildren; and
(c) acknowledges the tireless work that these worthy Australians do, which often goes unrecognised, and encourages the Australian Government to continue to work to alleviate the challenges that these grandparents face.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1153.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate acknowledges that:
(a) 26 October 2018 marks the 14th annual 'Day for Daniel' – a national day of action to raise awareness about child safety and protection;
(b) according to the Attorney-General's Department, the average custodial sentence for Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences is 1.8 years; and
(c) the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017, which seeks to introduce prescribed minimum penalties and a presumption against bail for serious child sex offences, represents a first step in addressing community concerns about manifestly inadequate sentencing practices.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute
The government is committed to protecting children from sexual predators. The government wants the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 to be debated and passed. However, at present, Labor and the Greens don't support the bill and its tougher penalties for child sex offenders. Mandatory minimum sentencing, combined with other measures in this bill, ensure that child sex predators receive appropriate sentences and are in prison so that they are no longer a threat to children. We call on Labor and the crossbench to support the bill.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The sexual abuse of children is intolerable. It is the most heinous crime that can be committed. Labor acknowledges the Daniel Morcombe Foundation and the important work they do to improve children's safety. Labor will be supporting the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017, and we will be strengthening it. Labor wants to send paedophiles to jail for longer. We believe the best way to achieve this is through higher penalties. We do not believe that mandatory minimum sentences will help keep children safe. In fact, the expert view from prosecutors, from police associations and from lawyers is that they do not work. Labor has no tolerance for child sexual abuse. We want to see this bill brought forward for debate, and we will be strengthening the bill to help keep children safe.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator McCarthy, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into PFAS contamination be extended to 3 December 2018.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Moore, I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the inaugural Australian Women in Music Awards (AWMA), acknowledging the significant contributions from across the Australian music industry,
(ii) that these awards celebrate remarkable women across all areas of music making, in technical and production areas, touring, management, publishing , cross-cultural development, music education, music photography, humanitarian work and performance,
(iii) that the awards also acknowledge two exceptional women, as posthumous patrons of the awards into the future, Ms Chrissy Amphlett and Auntie Ruby Hunter, whose legacies are strong and will inspire into the future,
(iv) the first AWMA Honour Roll inductee is Ms Helen Reddy, whose iconic anthem 'I Am Woman' has been cherished and sung proudly by women across the world since 1972,
(v) that three wonderful female artists were presented with Industry Lifetime Achievement Awards, Ms Patricia "Little Pattie" Amphlett, Ms Renee Geyer and Ms Margaret Roadnight, with over 160 years performing and entertaining between them in Australia, and around the world,
(vi) the sponsorship and support from the Queensland state government towards making the first AWMA event happen, and
(vii) the commitment, resilience and determination of the AMWA Founding Director and Executive Producer, Ms Vicki Gordon, and her dedicated team, who ensured that the awards be established and that women's contributions in the Australian music industry will no longer be sidelined; and
(b) congratulates all the nominees and the winners.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That:
(a) the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be extended to the second last sitting day of March 2019; and
(b) a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in this variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) abortion was decriminalised in Tasmania in 2013, and surgical terminations were being provided at private clinics without significant out-of-pocket expenses,
(ii) early this year, this provider closed their clinic, and the Tasmanian Liberal Government ruled out providing this essential service within the Tasmanian public health system, with women forced to travel interstate for treatment,
(iii) in February, the Federal and Tasmanian Ministers for Health gave assurances that this issue had been resolved, with the Tasmanian Minister more recently stating that a new low cost private provider would begin operation by October this year, and
(iv) despite these assurances, evidence has revealed a significant increase in the number of Tasmanian women being forced to travel interstate to access surgical abortions at great cost, and the Tasmanian Government is yet to reveal details of the private provider; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) work with the Tasmanian Government to resolve this issue for Tasmanian women so they can affordably access surgical terminations in the state, and
(ii) directly encourage provision of these essential health services in Tasmania by matching Federal Labor's $1 million commitment to a reproductive health hub.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) Leigh Creek Energy has produced its first syngas using underground coal gasification (UCG), and
(ii) UCG was banned in 2016 in Queensland after the Linc Energy disaster in Chinchilla, which was declared Queensland's worst environmental disaster;
(b) further notes that UCG has been responsible for incidents of poisoning the water table and contaminating soil and air, and has been linked to an increase in cancers, including lung and breast cancers; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to urgently intervene and stop the Leigh Creek project from progressing any further and ban UCG across the country.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia has a diverse range of energy resources, including conventional and unconventional gas. The development of our gas resources, including underground coal gasification, supports Australian industry and Australian jobs. Numerous inquiries into unconventional gas development have come to the same conclusion—that the industry can be developed safely with appropriate regulation. Any risks associated with unconventional gas development can be mitigated and managed with rigorous outcomes-focused regulation and evidence-based policy backed by scientific research.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
There are a number of points of fact that are raised in the motion that Labor hasn't been in a position to confirm. For that reason, Labor can't support this motion.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation will be supporting this motion. Having been out to Chinchilla and spoken to the families there, they're devastated about the effects it's having on the health of the children and the community. I believe that underground coal gasification, UCG, should be monitored a lot more. It is the responsibility of the state government to have a duty of care to the people in that region and to look after their health.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
That was an extraordinary excuse from the Labor Party to not be voting for this motion. The truth is this poisonous, toxic technology has been banned in Queensland by the Labor government up there. The same company, Linc Energy, now want to push their poisonous, toxic technology in my home state of South Australia, and I'm not having it. The Greens aren't having it. The South Australian community aren't having it. If it's good enough to ban it in Queensland, it's good enough to ban it in South Australia, and it should be banned everywhere.
The question is that motion No. 1146 be agreed to.
I seek leave to record in Hansard how I would have voted on a motion where I was absent from the chamber when it was dealt with.
Leave granted.
On the motion proposed earlier by Senators Bilyk and Brown with respect to the—
No. 1168, I believe it was.
It was 1168. I'd like Hansard to reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted against the motion.
Leave was granted for Senator O'Sullivan to make that statement, so, by virtue of him making it, it is recorded in Hansard.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that lead levels in Port Pirie continue to be dangerously high;
(b) further notes that:
(i) impacts on children are particularly significant with 21.4% of children currently exceeding blood lead level readings of 10 micrograms per decilitre, and
(ii) South Australia's Department of Health has indicated that there is no safe level of lead exposure, and exposure should be reduced or prevented to keep blood lead levels as low as possible; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to develop an action plan to immediately reduce lead levels in Port Pirie.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Elevated lead levels in Port Pirie are a matter for the South Australian government. The Australian government has written to the South Australian government, encouraging them to develop an action plan.
Question agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1148 standing in my name for today, relating to aid funding to the Palestinian territories, be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
There is an objection.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1152 standing in my name for today, relating to the Australian Constitution—you cannot object to this, surely—be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There being none, Senator Bernardi.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that 6 November 2018 marks the 19th anniversary of the defeat of the referendum proposal for Australia to break ties with the British monarchy and become a republic;
(b) further notes that every Australian state voted against the proposal; and
(c) supports Australia's Constitution.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The founders of our Constitution included a mechanism for us to regularly update the Constitution to ensure it remained relevant and reflected the will of the people. We note a recent survey indicated most Australians support Australia becoming a republic. If Labor is elected at the next election, we will hold a national vote to allow the Australian people to decide if they want an Australian as our head of state.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) trust in banks is essential to the economy,
(ii) trust in the banks has been undermined by adverse findings of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry,
(iii) misconduct related to poor standards of mortgage lending affects all Australians and risks financial instability,
(iv) concentration on mortgage lending makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn in the housing market,
(v) reliance on overseas debt markets for short-term borrowing by the major banks, and contagion from overseas counterparties through trillions of dollars of derivatives related to mortgages, pose serious systemic risk,
(vi) misconduct related to financial advice, small business lending, superannuation and insurance shows that the business model of major banks is based on exploitation rather than customer service,
(vii) the integrated structure of banks facilitates misconduct due to the lack of transparency when traditional commercial banking is linked with investment banking, financial advice, wealth management, stockbroking, superannuation and insurance businesses,
(viii) the integrated structure creates a conflict of interests because the lack of transparency enables banks to extract profits through cross-subsidies of various activities, and the indirect cost to retail superannuation members runs to many billions per year,
(ix) the enormous profits extracted through the integrated structure entrenches the major banks as an effective cartel, preventing market competition and increasing concentration, and
(x) the integrated structure puts bank deposits at risk as collateral for major banks' speculation in mortgage-backed securities and derivatives – this puts the real productive economy at unnecessary risk; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to reduce the conflicts of interests by legislating the structural separation of the banking system, where traditional commercial banking of taking deposits and making loans is separated from investment banking and all other financial services, including financial advice, wealth management, superannuation, stockbroking and insurance.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government opposes this motion. In order to have a stronger economy, it is integral to have a financial system that is efficient, stable and trustworthy. The government will await the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor fought for a royal commission. Labor has called for the royal commission to hear from more victims. Labor is doing everything it can to hear from those through roundtables around the country. But we can't rush into significant reforms like those proposed in this motion before the royal commission has delivered its final report. Labor will look with interest in the final report in February 2019 for recommendations to address the shocking findings outlined in the interim report.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens support breaking up the banks because we recognise there is a fundamental conflict of interest at the heart of the banking sector. We've been leading reform in this space. We led the campaign for a royal commission, and we're now leading the campaign to reform the banks. We said it was important to do that back in 2017. Since then, the Productivity Commission has said it too, ASIC has said it too and the royal commission is clearly saying it as well. ASIC says financial advisers to big banks recommend their own products instead of what's best for consumers 75 per cent of the time. If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what it is.
It's not enough to just say that we need to break up the banks and let banks focus on being banks. The ACCC needs to be put back in charge. We need a regulator with teeth. We need some real competition in the banking sector, which is why we've advocated for a national low-cost people's bank to restore competition to the mortgage market. Breaking up the banks is a good start, but it's just a start. Only the Greens have a plan to address this issue.
I move notice of motion No. 1149:
That the Senate:
(a) welcomes the release of the landmark report, An India economic strategy to 2035, by Mr Peter Varghese, AO, which develops a strategic plan for Australia's future engagement with India;
(b) notes:
(i) that according to this report, no single market over the next 20 years will offer more growth opportunities for Australia than India, and
(ii) the ten sectors highlighted in the report to optimise Australia's potential to satisfy India's priority needs are the flagship education sector, the three lead sectors of agribusiness, resources, and tourism, and the six 'promising' sectors of energy, health, financial services, infrastructure, sport, and science and innovation;
(c) recognises that the Australian Labor Party has already announced its in principle agreement with the report and ten key recommendations, as part of its 'FutureAsia' policy;
(d) compares the fanfare when the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, commissioned the report at the April 2017 India Australia Business Dinner in Mumbai, to the Government's efforts to bury the report since it was handed over in April 2018; and
(e) urges the Federal Government to respond to the report and its recommendations, taking Australia's relationship with India to the level it deserves.
We ask that the motion be put in its respective parts, starting with (a), (b) and (c) together and then (d) and (e) together.
The question is that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of general business notice of motion No. 1149 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that paragraphs (d) and (e) of general business notice of motion No. 1149 be agreed to.
Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018. This bill seeks to enfranchise gift card recipients who have been adversely affected by a previously disjointed, state-by-state approach to Australian gift card regulation. In Australia, 34 million gift cards are estimated to be sold each year by national retailers and small businesses, with an estimated value of $2.5 billion. One of the commonly used terms and conditions of gift cards are expiry dates. Many consumers' gift cards expire before they get the chance to use them, resulting in financial loss and disappointment for gift card recipients. Currently, the length of an expiry date on a gift card may vary considerably depending on the preferences of the trader. Losses from Australian gift card expiry are estimated to be $70 million annually.
This bill implements a minimum three-year expiry period for Australian gift cards, improving fairness for consumers and ensuring that they have an appropriate period of time to redeem the balance of a gift card, leading to a reduction in breakage. There is no prohibition on providing a longer expiry period. In addition, this bill includes increased disclosure requirements, including expiry information being prominently displayed on the card to ensure that consumers are aware of the expiry date of the card. This is largely consistent with industry practice and a majority of gift cards already display this information.
This bill will prohibit gift card suppliers from charging certain post-supply fees which can erode the balance on a gift card over time and operate as a de facto expiry date. This bill also voids existing terms and conditions on cards already in supply if they breach the above changes. The proposed three-year minimum expiry period does not change consumers' rights in the event that the supplier of the gift card becomes insolvent or bankrupt. They will continue to be treated as unsecured creditors.
Labor is pleased that the government has finally brought forward new legislation in the consumer affairs space. This government, with its sixth minister responsible for consumer affairs in five years, has let consumers down by deferring the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs, which was scheduled for August, due to leadership woes. Though Labor is pleased with the introduction of this bill, it is mind-boggling that it had to be approved by a circular resolution instead of at the cancelled national COAG consumer affairs forum. This is a government that is far more interested in its own party than in Australian consumers.
Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 introduces reforms to ensure a nationally consistent and uniform regime for gift cards in Australia. It introduces a minimum three-year expiry period, requires expiry date information to be disclosed prominently on the card and bans the charging of post-supply fees.
The reforms put to the parliament will provide consumers with greater confidence and make gift cards fairer for all consumers. Well-informed and confident consumers are essential to the functioning of an efficient economy. However, many consumers experience loss and disappointment from expired gift cards due to the wideranging variations in terms and conditions. This makes it difficult for consumers to understand their rights and obligations. It's equally important that businesses are supported in meeting their obligations and do not face an unnecessary compliance burden in complying with differing laws. The implementation of nationally consistent gift card reforms will provide greater clarity for Australian businesses. New South Wales and South Australia have moved to address the detriment consumers experience from expired gift cards with reforms to introduce a minimum three-year expiry period for gift cards sold in the respective states. Still, there is currently no uniform regulation for minimum expiry periods and post-supply fees, with different rules applying across jurisdictions. The inconsistencies have created uncertainty for consumers and a regulatory burden for businesses.
This bill proposes a three-year minimum expiry period nationally, balancing consumer rights and business compliance. The reforms will also require the expiry date information to be prominently displayed on the card. Enhanced disclosure of the expiry date on gift cards will ensure consumers are able to make informed purchasing decisions by having clear access to expiry date information at the time it is needed and on the card itself. The disclosure requirements in this bill provide clarity for consumers while providing businesses the needed flexibility in the way the date is displayed. Further, under the national regime, the charging of post-supply fees, such as inactivity and balance checking fees, will be prohibited. Consumers will have the full benefit of the gift cards they receive.
To ensure flexibility and provide support to industry, a regulation-making power is contained in the bill, allowing for certain gift cards, persons and gift cards supplied in particular circumstances to be exempt from all or some of the requirements imposed by this reform. This will allow the law to adapt to changes in technology and business activities to ensure that essential activities involving gift cards are not unnecessarily curtailed to the detriment of businesses and consumers. The government is comprehensively considering feedback from stakeholders on the nature and scope of the exemptions and post-supply fees to ensure that the business's gift card activities are not curtailed.
It is an offence to contravene the reforms contained in the bill. This will act as a strong deterrent against misconduct that can have serious detriment for consumers, thereby enhancing the integrity of the regulatory regime. The penalties that can be imposed for contravening the reforms are consistent with similar consumer protections in the Australian Consumer Law. Compliance with these reforms will be monitored and enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The government has consulted widely on the reforms. Consumers and businesses support this reform as it improves consumer outcomes, provides consistency and is workable for businesses.
The states and territories have also shown their support for a national regime. In August this year, Commonwealth, state and territory consumer affairs ministers formally agreed to amend the Australian Consumer Law as required under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Australian Consumer Law. The reforms will take effect on 1 November 2019, after providing industry around a 12-month transitional period to adapt to the new regime. This will ensure that these important protections for consumers are in place for the 2019 Christmas period. 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 now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
This piece of legislation, the Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018, is part of a range of measures to crack down on the proliferation of illicit tobacco in Australia. This bill, along with two others which are due to be debated later this week, implements measures in the 2018-19 budget under the banner 'Black Economy Package'.
Labor is supporting the passage of this bill to stop illicit tobacco and ultimately improve health outcomes for Australians. Our commitment on this side of the house is to stop the scourge of tobacco, and that speaks for itself. Smoking is the single most important preventable cause of ill health and death in Australia, accounting for more than 15,000 deaths each year. Labor governments have led the way and made significant advancements towards drastically reducing that number.
The bill will require tobacco importers to pay import duty on tobacco products upon importation into Australia from 1 July 2019. This removes the option of imported tobacco products entering Australia and a licensed warehouse without the payment of import duties. Labor supports these measures to tackle the black economy and to stop illicit tobacco entering the supply chain. Illicit tobacco is tobacco sold to Australian consumers without the payment of relevant taxes, and it's reported that close to a quarter of the illegal tobacco sold in Australia is actually leakage from licensed warehouses. By applying duties at the border rather than when tobacco leaves the warehouses, we're closing this loophole and the potential for illicit tobacco to be spreading in Australia. I support the bill.
I too rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018 and thank the member opposite for her contribution on this important matter. The Australian government is absolutely committed to combating the black market in illicit tobacco. In fact, in October 2017 the Black Economy Taskforce delivered its final report to government. The 2018-19 'Black economy package—combatting illicit tobacco' budget measure gives effect to the report's recommendations, including establishing a new framework to protect tobacco duty, a permit system to import tobacco and the Australian Border Force led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce.
Together, these measures will disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny criminal groups access to illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities. To give effect to the new framework to protect tobacco duty, the government is introducing the Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill. Current legislation allows duties on tobacco to be paid at the point when tobacco products leave licensed warehouses, as well as when they are imported. Leakage from these warehouses to the black market contributes to around a quarter of illicit tobacco in Australia.
From 1 July 2019, tobacco importers will be required to pay all duties on tobacco upon importation. From that date, the option to put imported tobacco into a licensed warehouse and delay the payment of duties will no longer be available. This will deny criminal groups the opportunity to defraud the Commonwealth of revenue that secures essential services for all Australians and prevent criminals from undermining government strategies to improve public health outcomes, and it will protect law-abiding local business operators. The bill will also include transitional arrangements for the treatment of tobacco that is in warehouses currently as at 1 July 2019. By tackling black economy activities in the tobacco warehouse environment, the government will protect Australian revenue, protect the health of Australians, reduce criminal activity and provide an estimated $3.3 billion in revenue to the Commonwealth. I thank members for their contribution to this very important debate and 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 now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak about the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018. As it stands, generally a person affected by a service injury or disease must make a claim themselves. However, in limited circumstances, a claim may be made by another person on their behalf. This legislative change will provide another avenue for claiming, which may streamline the claims process and, in some instances, help to facilitate earlier acceptance of liability.
Further reforms to align the powers of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to allow them to obtain information under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 are also included. The changes will allow the MRCC to require information from any Commonwealth state or territory departments and authorities. This includes agencies such as the ATO, Centrelink and Medicare. Both of these schedules seek to streamline processes and improve the claims process broadly and the process of obtaining information for DRCA clients. It's for this reason that Labor is supportive of these measures.
Finally, the legislation will ensure that lump sum determinations made by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services will apply as exempt lump sums from the income test that applies to DVA income support clients when appropriate. Currently, the Repatriation Commission often implements separate yet identical exempt lump sum determinations for payments that have already been exempted by DSS. This places an unnecessary additional burden on DVA which could be removed by allowing exempt lump sum determinations made by DSS to apply to DVA income support clients where the exemption is consistent. This bill seeks to streamline the claims process, make it easier for the MRCC to obtain information for DRCA clients and prevent unnecessary delays with the creation of additional instruments. Labor are supportive of the measures, which seek to improve processes for veterans and their loved ones, and as such offer our support for this bill.
I'd like to thank the senators who have contributed to the debate on this bill and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for our veteran community demonstrated by the opposition. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018 is designed to improve outcomes for serving Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families and will ensure that essential services are available to veterans when they need it. This bill demonstrates the commitment this government made in 2016 and 2017 to put veterans first and continues on measures we introduced earlier this year under the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Act 2018 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No.2) 2018 Act.
The Australian community has a clear expectation that veterans and their families will be well looked after. This bill will extend claim avenues to include the Chief of Defence Force, resolve veterans' claims more quickly by strengthening the ability of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to obtain information from third parties, and expedite lump sum exemptions for veterans by simplifying DVA and Department of Human Services processes.
Schedule 1 of the bill would amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to enable the Chief of Defence Force to make a claim for liability on behalf of a current serving Australian Defence Force member where the member suffers a service injury or disease and agrees to the Chief of Defence Force or his delegate making that claim. Veterans will benefit in having their future claims for related diseases and conditions that manifest after their service more easily accepted. DVA will be able to use the additional claim data at the point of injury to better inform decisions around trends in injury and the onset of other conditions. This may inform related policy on simplifying and streamlining the claims process.
Schedule 2 of the bill would enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to obtain information in determining a claim for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. Veterans can be adversely affected when information critical to their claim is not provided by third parties. These provisions will provide veterans and their families with easier access to information relevant to their compensation claim. The provisions will require Commonwealth, state and territory departments and third parties to provide information to the commission. This will ensure that the commission has access to all the information necessary to make decisions on claims. The amendments would bring the DRCA in line with the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.
Schedule 3 would improve administrative practices in the Department of Veterans' Affairs concerning income support clients and the exempting of certain lump sum payments from the income test. The amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 would allow certain lump sum determinations made by the secretary for social services to apply to income support clients where that determination is consistent with the Department of Veterans' Affairs legislation and policy. The Repatriation Commission will retain a discretion to make a determination to specify an exempt lump sum where they may need to. The amendment will not change the current exclusions of the determination as it applies to companies, trusts and primary production. Each of these amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families. I commend this 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 now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third 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 now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018. Labor will not be supporting the bill. In our remote First Nations communities far from labour markets, jobs are scarce and sometimes non-existent. The design of these programs has been constantly changing as governments of both persuasions have tried to manage and balance the rights and responsibilities in what is really an artificial labour market.
The government has created a program called the CDP, the Community Development Program. Of the 35,000 participants, around 85 per cent are First Nations people. This government has sold the rights to manage the program in communities to the private sector, to big foreign owned companies like MAX Employment. The program settings, designed in Canberra and rolled out in the bush, are fatally flawed, as the Senate committee report has shown. The penalty regime for breaches of the program is ruthless, draconian and discriminatory. It creates hardship and hunger for kids in communities where there are breaches. Being off an income for four weeks is certainly not humane.
Since the CDP was introduced, the number of financial penalties applied to people in remote areas has increased sevenfold, from 5,900 per quarter to 45,000 per quarter. By comparison, jobactive has fewer financial penalties for participants per quarter on average, at 37,000, despite being a program which has 20 times more people. The impact of these financial penalties on the most disadvantaged, marginalised people in Australia is well known to our communities. It leads to overcrowding, to family violence and to poor health.
This coalition government promised substantial reform to CDP. The bill is not that substantial reform. The bill does not fix the real problems but does tamper around the edges. If the bill were to pass, it would create more hardships. Our approach if we were to legislate, from the Labor point of view, would be to underpin greater empowerment of local communities in administration and management; provide quarantined funding for the benefit of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities managing the program; separate out the mainstream policy and administration scheme to confine it to a discrete Aboriginal community; focus upon wage parity and conditions; and focus the scheme upon community development and training. The current CDP is a failure, and the government's proposed amendments will make it worse. Labor will not support this legislation.
I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018 as well. The Greens oppose this bill. We are highly critical of the CDP program and have opposed it since it started because of its discriminatory nature. This bill entrenches that discriminatory nature despite the government saying it's better. The fact is that different rules will apply to people living in remote communities, and let's face it: those are overwhelmingly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The bill still entrenches discrimination, because different rules will apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote communities. The number of hours that will be required will be reduced from 25 to 20, but that will be for 46 weeks of the year—in other words, most of the year—and it starts immediately, whereas in the broader community, the broader Work for the Dole program, it's 15 hours, you don't start for 12 months and it's for six months of the year. So it's discriminatory in its very nature.
We believe that the program should be scrapped. We believe that there is a need for reform. We start from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory submission to the committee but also their much broader proposal that has been out there for a while—and they did submit it to the committee review of this bill. They have a much more supportive, less punitive, less top-down approach that would genuinely deliver funding for training and jobs. Along with this proposal go 6,000 subsidised jobs. Firstly, the community is very clearly calling for community wages and to go to an approach similar to that of the former program, CDEP. So the government has not delivered what the community asked for in the first place. Secondly, the job opportunities just aren't there in these communities.
This program seeks to apply the targeted compliance framework, commonly known as the TCF, which the CDP participants were exempt from when the welfare reform bill went through. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are subject to CDP will unfortunately have much more interaction with the system, so they'll have more chances to be subjected to compliance failure and will end up in the basket where very significant penalties apply which are not able to be waived. So, from every front that you look at this, it is bad legislation and should be opposed.
I'm pleased also to have an opportunity to contribute on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill. Along with a number of other senators in this chamber, including Senator McAllister, Senator Dodson and Senator Siewert, I participated in the inquiry conducted by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into the Community Development Program. I found that to be an enlightening and very useful process. I attended the committee's hearings in Kalgoorlie, Townsville and Palm Island. There's no question that, through the committee, the government received very valuable feedback on the CDP.
One of the things I took out of that inquiry process and the evidence we received was that there was substantial feedback to the government on the running of the program, particularly the administration of the program, the frustrations some people had in dealing with Centrelink and the breaches regime. Overwhelmingly, the evidence was that everybody agreed the principle of mutual obligation is important and should stay and that we should never go back to the system, as it has been in the past, of passive welfare because of the shocking damage it has done to remote and regional communities and, in particular, Indigenous communities. I cannot remember a witness from a remote or regional area, from an Indigenous community, who said they thought it was a good idea to go back to passive welfare or it was a good idea to get rid of mutual obligation altogether.
On one level, I'm not surprised to see the Greens come into the chamber and say they're going to oppose this bill. They're unconvinced about the concept of mutual obligation full stop. They are unconvinced about the idea that people should need to work in exchange for receiving welfare. But the Labor Party is not. The Labor Party says that they support the concept of mutual obligation—that they understand the need to have work requirements in exchange for receiving welfare—yet, as we heard from Senator Dodson, they are opposing this bill. I accept that the Labor Party might not agree with every recommendation the government has adopted. I accept that there may be a different path that they would like to take with the CDP, and, should they have the opportunity of forming government in the future, they, of course, will have the opportunity to do that. But what they are doing today is standing in the way of reforms that the communities we heard from asked us to implement. The Labor Party are saying that the program should stay as it is today until they have an opportunity to perhaps rewrite it in the future. I think that is a mistake.
This bill brings forward reforms to one of the most important priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Communities are strong when adults are engaged in work or meaningful activities that contribute to the benefit of the community. Since its introduction in July 2015, the Community Development Program has improved employment and participation outcomes for remote jobseekers. The CDP has supported remote jobseekers into more than 26,200 jobs, and on more than 8,800 occasions they have stayed in a job for at least six months. The CDP turned around the failings of the Remote Jobs and Communities Program, which had replaced the previous Community Development Employment Projects, or the CDEP. The Remote Jobs and Communities Program allowed the return of the misery of sit-down money, and engagement dropped to a shocking rate of seven per cent. The CDP has worked because it ensures that jobseekers have real mutual obligation requirements and because communities are increasingly at the heart of the delivery of the program. While the CDP is successfully getting jobseekers off welfare and into work, the government does recognise that there are areas of the system that can be improved.
The government has listened to the outcomes of the Senate inquiry process, as I mentioned, including the submissions and the public hearings, where many stakeholders took the opportunity to voice their views and concerns, including the Aboriginal peak organisations of the Northern Territory, as Senator Siewert mentioned. The government has also taken on board the Australian National Audit Office's performance audit outcomes. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet released a discussion paper in December 2017 which received 40 public submissions and which provided a range of constructive views and suggestions. What we hear from the community, what people are asking for, is this: more jobs in remote Australia, access to real wages, reduced complexity in the income support system, and simplified actions with Centrelink. We have heard the consistent message that jobseekers need to be engaged to ensure that there is a clear pathway to a job and that the misery of passive welfare does not return. These CDP reforms create a fairer and simpler system, provide more local control, and drive a focus on employment and engagement with jobseekers. The introduction of the targeted compliance framework will significantly reduce the number of breaches, and that is one of the key pieces of evidence that we heard from communities during the hearings.
Critics of the program, particularly from the east coast, who are often driving a lot of the media coverage about this program, can't have it all. They can't, on the one hand, complain that the current CDP doesn't work and then use that same data to block the reforms that we're proposing, which would create a simpler and fairer system. They are standing in the way of improvements to a system that they say needs improvements.
On 8 May 2018 the government announced reforms to the CDP as part of the 2018-19 budget. There are three key changes to the program and they include, firstly, reducing income reporting requirements to Centrelink for jobseekers who have a mutual obligation of less than 15 hours a week. We certainly heard the frustrations of many remote communities in dealing with Centrelink. We've heard that concern and we are responding to it. Secondly, we're improving the assessment process so that barriers to employment are better identified and local health workers can provide the medical evidence needed to reduce the required participation. This is another key theme of the feedback that we received during the inquiry—that often it was other failings of government, and sometimes at different levels, and other systems have let them down, which was preventing proper participation and engagement with the CDP. So anything we can do within the CDP to help respond to those other issues will help the success of the CDP. Thirdly, we're reducing required participation from up to 25 hours a week to up to 20 hours a week.
These changes will commence, if the bill is successful, from February 2019. What they will do is support local control and decision-making through a much more community based approach. We are strengthening the community and the say that they have in how the CDP is delivered locally by contracting with more Indigenous service providers and linking with local governance arrangements. I think it's really important that there are excellent Indigenous service providers out there who are keen to be involved in and have a greater say on the delivery of this program in the local area. With the superior local knowledge they have, they will be able to help deliver the program more effectively.
Importantly, the government will work with local communities to support 6,000 subsidised jobs across remote Australia. This will provide access to real wages and it will move people off welfare and into work. These will be jobs in community, identified by community, and delivering for the community's needs. Things like housing managers, local government workers, community health support, teaching assistants, construction or aged care are some examples of the kinds of jobs that could be delivered under this program. These jobs will only be available to CDP participants. They will help grow the size and capacity of the remote labour market and support the development of more local businesses and more local economies. I take up Senator Dodson's point that the labour market in a lot of remote and regional areas is in many ways an artificial labour market, and we should do whatever we can to help create the ecosystem for a stronger and more genuine economic activity and a proper local jobs market.
The subsidised jobs package is part of a pathway to employment, and it will provide real work experience for jobseekers while also paying them real wages. Again, that is one of the consistent pieces of feedback we received during the inquiry: people want real jobs and they want to be paid real wages. That's fair enough, and we are taking a step to achieve that. Jobseekers will continue to access support from employers and CDP providers to help them to stay in a job for the long term, which is critically important. It's no good getting people into a job that doesn't last very long. It's no good getting them into a job that lasts only a few months. We want to get them into permanent, long-lasting jobs and continued employment.
These jobs will provide meaningful employment, and the participants will be subject to the same pay and conditions that would otherwise be attached to those positions. Many participants who are placed in these jobs will continue to also qualify for the reduced rate of their income support payments after the applicable income test is applied. Some of these participants will not have had a job before or they may have been unemployed for quite some time. They might also need some additional support in making the transition into the workplace. We want these participants to succeed in taking that pathway to meet their career goals and their aspirations. That's why we are removing from them all of the other requirements that would usually apply under social security law. That's so their focus can be on attaining and retaining that meaningful real employment.
The subsidised job program complements what's in the legislation before the Senate today, but it will also be at the heart of the CDP going forward and the pathway to a job. Under the CDP going forward there will be, as I mentioned, 6,000 remote jobseekers being supported into a job at any time. This is a really exciting change and one that allows communities to support more jobs for locals and to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not only engaged in work but also more engaged in the delivery of services to their own communities. The reforms build on the early successes of the CDP and continue to drive employment in remote Australia by helping to improve the skills and employability of jobseekers, increasing their participation through a greater range of work-like activities in the community.
The bill before us today amends the social security law to support the introduction of a new targeted compliance framework in remote Australia consistent with the arrangements across the rest of Australia. Following the passage of this bill, if it is successful, the CDP participants will be subject to the TCF. This means that there will be one national jobseeker compliance framework for all jobseekers, both remote and nonremote. I think that, in part, addresses the concerns that Senator Siewert was raising—that a different system applies to remote and regional jobseekers, who, as she says, are predominantly Indigenous Australians.
The TCF commenced across jobactive, ParentsNext and Disability Employment Services on 1 July 2018—the rest of the welfare system—and it will commence in the CDP from February 2019, if this bill is successful. CDP jobseekers will see considerable changes in how they interact with providers and Centrelink. The new TCF has additional protections for vulnerable jobseekers. It reduces the interactions with Centrelink, which is again responding to the concerns that we heard directly from communities about being frustrated in their dealings with Centrelink, and builds in more checkpoints to ensure that all jobseekers are fully capable of meeting their requirements. We want jobseekers to be successful in meeting their requirements; we don't want them to breach them. We don't want them to spend their time interacting with Centrelink when it's not necessary. There will be a greater role, importantly, for local CDP providers, who are on the ground and closer to the communities and know them better, to work with the CDP participants in the application of the TCF. That will mean there will be less interaction with Centrelink compared to the current framework. That will mean less time waiting on the phone, which, as we heard from many remote jobseekers during the inquiry, they find to be a very frustrating experience.
The reforms will see a significant reduction in the number of penalties applied to CDP jobseekers. The introduction of the TCF will remove penalties for one-off breaches of mutual obligation requirements, and financial penalties will focus on those who are persistently and wilfully noncompliant. Again, we heard about the impact that breaches have on participants in the program and also local communities. Breaches should not be applied unless they are persistently and wilfully noncomplaint. They shouldn't apply for occasional noncompliance or incidental or accidental noncompliance. They should really be focused only on those wilful and persistent noncompliant participants in the program.
To assist CDP participants in meeting their requirements, mutual obligation hours—as I mentioned earlier—will be reduced from up to 25 hours per week to up to 20 hours a week, and that will depend on the jobseekers' assessed work capacity. Alongside the application of the TCF, the reforms include a number of changes to increase the role of local health service providers to support participants in their communities. As I said earlier, participation in the CDP is often hampered by other issues with government service delivery in the community. The more we can help the people participate in the program and remove those barriers to participation, the more likely it is that the CDP will also succeed. Changes will include, for example, the provision of local health workers to supply evidence for the Department of Human Services to use when deciding whether to reduce a participant's mutual obligation hours.
The bill also introduces specific exemptions for participants in subsidised employment, removing interactions with Centrelink and focusing on engagement with the employers. Participants in subsidised employment will be exempt from the activity test requirements and will not incur mutual obligation failures under the TCF. This seeks to emulate one of the positive aspects of the old CDEP, where participants were paid wages outside of the income support system. We heard a lot of affection for that former program, the CDEP, which was abolished by the former Labor government and replaced by the remote jobs scheme. Crucially, entry into subsidised work will be voluntary. Therefore, CDP participants who for any reason refuse an offer of subsidised employment will not incur a work refusal failure. This provides CDP participants with the freedom to determine whether the subsidised employment opportunity available to them suits their personal commitments, their career aspirations, their skills and their experience. CDP participants will continue to have appropriate JobSearch requirements as part of their mutual obligation requirements determined by their provider. Similarly, participants in subsidised employment will not be subject to a work refusal failure if they refuse an offer of suitable unsubsidised employment.
Participants in subsidised employment will also not be subject to an unemployment failure if they voluntarily leave their position or are dismissed due to misconduct. This approach provides participants with the opportunity to leave subsidised employment without penalty if, after commencement of the position, they determine that the role is not suitable for them or their personal circumstances—for example, due to a requirement to relocate or family violence. As each subsidised position is funded for two years, this will also free up the subsidised job opportunity for a jobseeker who may be better suited to the role. This bill ensures that the local community is at the heart of our remote employment services. That was probably one of the main themes that came out of the inquiry: local community control to address local community problems. It listens to local views and local priorities, will be delivered by local community organisations, will ensure local jobseekers are engaged and better supported, and will provide a clear pathway to a job.
Without this legislation, though, the government will not be able to fully deliver the subsidised employment program as participants will still be subject to compliance under social security laws. I assume that would be a seriously unintended consequence of the decision by other parties in this chamber to vote against it. I presume they don't want the existing compliance regime to apply to subsidised workers, but that will be the effect if they follow through on their decision to vote against this legislation in the chamber. Without this legislation, CDP participants will continue to be subject to a different compliance model than the rest of Australia. We heard from Senator Siewert earlier that one of the Greens' criticisms of this system is that people in remote communities, who are predominantly Indigenous, are subject to a different set of rules than the rest of Australia. This bill attempts to bring it more closely into line with the requirements for other welfare recipients around Australia, and the Greens are proposing to vote against it. The legislation ensures remote jobseekers will have the support they need to move along the pathway to work. I hope the Greens and Labor reconsider their opposition to it.
I want to make one final point about consultation. The minister has personally visited more than 200 communities since the commencement of the CDP. The government has listened to the outcomes of the Senate inquiry process, which I have talked about, including the submissions and the public hearings, where many stakeholders took the opportunity to voice their views and concerns about the program. This process of consultation has not finished. We will continue to consult with remote communities, remote jobseekers and Indigenous leaders as we work to implement these reforms. It is a little bit disappointing that others in this chamber have listened more to academics on the east coast than to the people who live in remote Australia.
I too rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018. Following on from Senator Paterson, I think it's very important to understand that, when we're talking about Indigenous employment opportunities, this is only one building block in a complete plan to enable every Australian to have the opportunity to find and keep a stable and reasonably paid job. We see right across the economy the work of the minister to try and build the capacity of Indigenous businesses, to employ Indigenous Australians and to build the capacity of other businesses to do so. We see changes to things like the CDP to try and enable the building blocks to be put in place to grow the economic base, particularly in those remote communities where the economic base isn't necessarily available to sustain long-term, well-paid jobs.
But part of the problem in that regard is that, in order to develop the economic base, particularly in remote and regional Australia, we actually need to have development. Recently, in Western Australia, we had the Thunderbird project in the Pilbara, which has, thank goodness, recently gained its final environmental approval and heritage approval, but the process took far too long and was far too expensive. Why is that relevant to this bill? Because one of the commitments that Thunderbird made to communities in that remote part of Western Australia was that 40 per cent of their workforce—a significant workforce—were going to come from the local Indigenous communities. That is what we want to do. That's what this government wants to do. We want to build capacity.
I was talking to the mayor of the Shire of Laverton about work being done on the Outback Way. They have a road building contractor team, construction companies and Indigenous-run businesses employing local people to do the work and to deliver long-term, sustainable jobs. We have to grow the economic base of the regions and grow the economic base in rural and regional Australia, and to do that we need development.
The CDP is an important part of allowing people to gain some skills and experience, but it is part of a series of building blocks which we need to put in place in order to give people the opportunity they deserve to build a better life for themselves; to stay on their country, if that's what they choose to do; and to stay engaged with their friends and families, if that's where they choose to stay. But, in order to do that, we actually need development. We actually need real jobs out in the regions. So I certainly support this bill. It is a building block for what we need to do.
I will go through some of the detail of the bill, but, before I do so, I want to talk about some of the other things that have been done in this space and some of the other things which the minister, in particular, and this government have been focused on. The support we provide to growing the Indigenous business sector is fundamental, as I've said. It is vitally important that people both see success stories and find a path to work through those success stories, through those businesses. I will again go back to a case in WA. I met with Minister Scullion a couple of times recently. There is an electrical business located in Fremantle, Western Australia, called Wilko. This business has a really strong focus on Indigenous employment. They are doing great things. They are providing apprenticeships in the Indigenous employment space. They have gained support from the government in order to grow their business, to keep those people in jobs employed and to get the training they need to actually build better lives. The whole point of growing the Indigenous business sector is to create more jobs and to provide economic independence, which is so vital to a successful future.
Growing the Indigenous business sector doesn't happen in isolation; it happens in the framework of generally good government policy settings. We've seen a commitment in the other place, and we saw it here this morning, locking in those tax cuts and accelerating those tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses. It helps all businesses, including Indigenous businesses.
We have seen, through this government's Indigenous Procurement Policy, a drive in demand for those services from Indigenous businesses. That is tapping into the extraordinary capabilities that those businesses can provide and that haven't always been as well recognised in the past as perhaps they should have been. This is an example of how government policy can actually help spread the word and give those businesses an opportunity. Since the Indigenous Procurement Policy was launched, the Commonwealth has purchased just over $1 billion worth of goods and services from or through Indigenous businesses. That is over $1 billion, up from just $6.2 million in 2012-13. That alone is a remarkable achievement and is delivering positive impacts on the ground.
Through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, the government is supporting around 58 jobs per day for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It is not just in employment that we are making a difference for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. By supporting education we are also giving Indigenous children the best possible start in life. Through the IAS, the government is investing over $220 million in 2018-19 to improve education outcomes from early childhood and schooling through to higher education. In secondary schools, we have committed more than $400 million since the start of IAS in activities to help over 25,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people to stay engaged with the education system. Obviously, a key part of building an individual's capacity over time is to keep kids engaged with the education system.
It's also important that people live in a safe environment. Through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, we have invested around $245 million in 2018-19, including funding for 14 specialist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family violence prevention legal services. These services supported around 4,000 victims of family violence last year. That $245 million, through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, funded community night patrols, operating across 81 communities in the Northern Territory, nine in South Australia and one in Western Australia. That employed a total of 403 patrollers, of which 96 per cent are Indigenous. We have continued to support, through this Indigenous Advancement Strategy, the rollout of low-aromatic fuel. Since October 2013 a total of 46 new sites have been added and have started stocking the lower-aromatic fuel, taking the total number of sites around Australia to 175.
The government is also supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander jobseekers in remote areas through a number of new business initiatives. The Indigenous Entrepreneurs Capital Scheme, which I did speak about earlier, is a $90 million facility within the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which provides one-off grants for the purchase or lease of business plant and equipment, as well as tailored business advice to assist businesses to identify opportunities, plan for sustainability and access appropriate commercial finance. It is exclusively for Indigenous businesses in regional and remote areas, unlocking business opportunities for jobseekers in those areas. The plan there is that you build up the businesses and give them the capacity to employ more people. They will then employ more Indigenous people. They will, in that way, grow the capacity of the entire communities.
The government has also announced that it is investing an additional just over $3 million in Indigenous Business Australia to deliver start-up grant, loan and lease packages over the next 12 months to Indigenous customers in Aboriginal Land Rights Act areas, community living areas and remote native title areas of the Northern Territory. As part of those packages, IBA will provide tailored assistance in the form of ongoing management activities to support Indigenous business growth and a capital mix of low-interest rate loans and/or low-interest lease plus grants up to a combined value of $100,000 per customer.
Additionally, the Commonwealth government supports remote businesses through Many Rivers Microfinance Limited. Many Rivers Microfinance is funded by the IAS to deliver micro-enterprise development support to approximately 800 Indigenous entrepreneurs in remote areas and economic development support to local remote Indigenous community organisations in 40 locations over the next three years. Once again, you can see this is part of the government's plan to put the building blocks in place to actually develop the economic base out there in remote and rural Australia, particularly, to give those communities a chance to have long-term, sustainable jobs that pay a decent wage and can give people a long-term path to employment.
The government is also assisting Indigenous businesses in the construction industry, who face unique challenges because many projects need a construction guarantee in order to win work. These requirements present a significant barrier to entry, particularly for those businesses that are in remote areas or may not have a large book of projects in front of them. The new $20 million performance and warranty bond facility, which Indigenous construction firms can use to win road and construction contracts, has been introduced. Again, we see these kinds of businesses already in operation in building parts of the Outback Way.
So the package of reforms to the CDP builds on all these other things that we are doing in the space of Indigenous employment. They were developed directly in response to feedback from communities and will increase support to vulnerable jobseekers in remote Australia, providing more pathways to jobs, moving people off welfare and into jobs, and improving outcomes.
I want to go to some of the detail in the bill. In particular, I wish to address in detail the Targeted Compliance Framework. The TCF is a demerit point system where jobseekers incur demerits through noncompliance with their mutual obligation requirements but generally no financial penalties in the initial stages. The TCF is split into three zones: the green zone, where there are no demerits; the warning zone, where there are one to five demerits in a six-month period; and the penalty zone. Generally that means more than five demerits within a six-month period. Once a jobseeker has accrued five demerits in six months, financial penalties may start to apply for latent noncompliance. However, the jobseeker will have two separate assessments before this point. This is very important: jobseekers can move back into the green zone by consistently meeting their mutual obligations. Obviously, all jobseekers will commence in the green zone with no demerits. If a jobseeker in the green zone fails to meet a mutual obligation requirement, the provider must speak with the jobseeker following each event of noncompliance to discuss if the jobseeker had a valid reason for not attending. If so, they would generally have the requirement rescheduled, but the accrued demerit is removed and any payment is unsuspended and back-paid. If there is no valid reason for noncompliance, the accrued demerit is confirmed and the jobseeker's payments remain suspended until they re-engage with their missed requirement, although there are exceptions to this.
After three demerits in the warning zone, a capability interview is triggered between the jobseeker and their provider. The capability interview is an additional protection for the jobseeker. The provider is required to meet again with the jobseeker to ensure that they are fully capable of meeting their current requirements and understand their obligations. The interview provides the opportunity for the jobseeker to disclose circumstances that may be impacting their ability to meet their requirements. It also ensures that providers consider the jobseeker's requirement against their level of capability, anything which might be affecting their ability to comply, any other supports they may need, their personal circumstances, their skills and the local labour market. Providers must discuss recent noncompliance and ensure that the jobseeker understands that ongoing noncompliance could result in financial penalties. If it is found that the jobseeker is not capable of successfully meeting their job plan or does not understand the requirements, a reconsideration of requirements for the jobseeker is required. This can occur if a newly disclosed—
Order! Senator Brockman, you'll be in continuation when the debate resumes.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Leaked messages between Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi reveal that Australia's close friend and neighbour believed Prime Minister Morrison's decision to overturn longstanding bipartisan foreign policy would 'slap Indonesia's face', 'be a really big blow' and 'affect bilateral relations'. Why is Prime Minister Morrison putting the Liberal Party's political interests ahead of the national interest?
That is not what Prime Minister Morrison is doing. Prime Minister Morrison is putting the national interest ahead of anything else. It is quite appropriate for the Australian government, from time to time, to consider the best way forward in relation to an important foreign policy matter. Of course it's appropriate, and that is what we're doing. Of course we continue to engage and talk with all of our friends and partners, including and in particular our great friends in Indonesia.
Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Can the Minister confirm that the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Quinlan, was formally summonsed by Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno in response to Prime Minister Morrison's decision to overturn longstanding bipartisan foreign policy?
What I can confirm is that the Australian government continues to engage positively and constructively with all of our friends in Indonesia.
Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.
I ask the minister to take on notice the previous question as to whether the ambassador was summonsed. The leaked exchange between Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Indonesian foreign minister is in stark contrast with Prime Minister Morrison's claims that the announcement is 'not an issue of concern' for Indonesia. Why isn't Mr Morrison telling Australians the truth about the impact of his decision to overturn longstanding foreign policy five days out from the Wentworth by-election?
Senator Cormann.
He's lied. He has lied. He's told—
Senator Wong, I would ask you to withdraw that personal reflection.
Alright. I withdraw it. He has misled.
As I've indicated before, Australia continues to engage positively and constructively with all our friends around the world, including in particular our friends in Indonesia. Minister Payne and her Indonesian counterpart had a very constructive discussion on Tuesday regarding Australia's announcement. Minister Payne emphasised that there had been no change to Australia's commitment to the Middle East peace process and to a durable and resilient two-state solution that allows Israel and a future Palestinian state to exist side by side within internationally recognised borders. And, of course, Senator Wong is misrepresenting what was announced earlier this week. What was announced earlier this week was a process. Australia, as a sovereign country, is entitled, from time to time, to engage in processes of this kind.
Senator Wong?
I note that Senator Payne is not present. I think the Leader of the Government in the Senate missed ministerial arrangements.
I inform the Senate that Senator Payne, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be absent from question time today due to overseas ministerial business. During Senator Payne's absence, I will represent the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC; Senator Birmingham will represent the Minister for Foreign Affairs; and Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Women and the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations.
I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 35th Delegation from the United States of America. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Can the minister outline the importance of tax reform for the Australian economy and living standards?
Earlier today the Senate passed a core part of the coalition government's plan for a stronger economy, more jobs and higher wages—a plan that is working as we have seen again today with the release of data in relation to the unemployment rate showing that the unemployment rate is down to five per cent. And that is important because, when we came into government five years ago facing a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position, do you know, colleagues, what the shadow Treasurer, Mr Bowen, said would be the test of whether we had succeeded or failed in terms of economic management? He said that we needed to ensure that the unemployment rate stayed below 6¼ per cent. So I'm looking forward to the speech later today by the shadow Treasurer in the other place in which he will recognise that the coalition government has indeed been the superior economic manager over the last five years, because not only have our policies delivered stronger growth—3.4 per cent growth in the 12 months of 2017-18—but also more than 1.1 million jobs were created under our government.
As a result of the legislation which passed the Senate today, there will be more investment, more growth and more jobs. And, as more jobs are created and the unemployment rate continues to go down and the excess supply in the labour market continues to reduce, wages will grow more strongly. Indeed, all of the respected economic commentators are already observing that there has been a pick-up in wages growth in recent times—something that we expect to continue on the back of stronger growth under the coalition.
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
How has the government's prudent economic management allowed it to introduce these important reforms whilst still guaranteeing the services that Australians want and expect?
This is a government with a very strong track record of economic reform. Our economic reforms and our plan for stronger growth and more jobs have not only delivered better opportunities for Australians to get ahead but have also had a very beneficial impact on our budget bottom line. And do you know what happens when you have stronger growth and more jobs? You end up getting more revenue on the back of more people in jobs—not on the back of jacking up taxes, as the Labor Party wants to do, but on the back of more people in paid work. More people in paid work, paying more in personal income tax, means more revenue for the government—which we can then invest in the essential services Australians expect—and less expenditure on welfare payments as more people move from welfare into work. That is surely a good thing, and that is why in 2017-18 we delivered a budget bottom line $19.3 billion better than was forecast when the budget was delivered a year and a half ago.
Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
What are the risks of not following the government's plan for tax reform and not growing the economy?
Barnaby Joyce! Look out, Barnaby is back!
Order, Senator Watt! Before I call Senator Cormann, Senator Watt, I have repeatedly asked for silence during questions. That was particularly voluble.
Earlier today the Labor Party decided, on this occasion, to back in the Liberal-National government's plan for lower taxes for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. If only they had done that in March 2017, in the absence of Centre Alliance senators here today, it would have been much better for the good health of former Senator Nick Xenophon. Labor fought us every step of the way back in March 2017 when we were trying to get the first three years of our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan legislated through this parliament. Labor didn't vote for it today because they believe in it. They voted for it because they made a political judgement that standing in the way of lower taxes for small and medium sized businesses would be a bad thing to do. Of course, Labor still wants to go to the next election with more than $200 billion in higher taxes, which would hurt the economy, cost jobs and be very bad for families around Australia wanting to get ahead.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that Prime Minister Morrison has overturned longstanding bipartisan foreign policy without proper consideration and decision by the cabinet, against the longstanding advice of government agencies and without properly consulting Australia's friends and allies?
The government made its decisions in relation to the process that the Prime Minister announced today through all the appropriate decision-making processes of government.
Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
Leaked messages reveal that, after being told of Prime Minister Morrison's intention to overturn longstanding bipartisan foreign policy, the Indonesian foreign minister, Retno Marsudi, asked Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Marise Payne: 'Is it really necessary to do this on Tuesday?' Why was the Prime Minister in such a rush that he made the announcement on Tuesday despite the pleas from Indonesia, which was at the time hosting the Palestinian foreign minister? (Time expired)
As I've already indicated to the chamber, the foreign minister, Minister Payne, has had very good and very constructive discussions with her Indonesian counterpart. That is what we always do and will continue to do.
Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
Rodger Shanahan, a research fellow and Middle East policy expert at the Lowy Institute, says Prime Minister Morrison's announcement is 'poorly thought out, trying to make tactical political mileage out of what is a strategic political issue'. Isn't it clear that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Peter Jennings is right when he says that the announcement is 'clearly connected to Wentworth'?
I know Mr Jennings very well. I hold him in very high regard. But I do not agree with him on this occasion.
My question is to Senator Birmingham, stepping in for Senator Payne today. On 2 October journalist Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul. He's been missing since then. It is widely reported that Turkish officials have evidence that he was murdered, tortured and dismembered inside the consulate. Minister, could you please update the chamber on any recent developments in relation to the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi? I understand that Senator Ruston read out the other day that the government has expressed concern to Saudi Arabia over this issue. But have you sought an explanation in response to these allegations, and can you outline that to the chamber?
I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question. I can confirm that the Australian government has expressed our concerns in relation to this deeply concerning matter. The foreign minister, Senator Payne, has raised those concerns in a meeting with the Saudi Arabian ambassador. We note that a joint Turkish-Saudi investigation into the disappearance is occurring, and that is a welcome step. The Australian government has called for that investigation to be conducted in good faith, with full cooperation, and to be reported transparently once results are drawn up.
Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question.
Thank you, Minister, for outlining your concern on this matter. The so-called Davos of the Desert investment summit will be held in Riyadh next week. In the wake of this journalist's disappearance, a large number of companies and governments are boycotting this event. Minister, I understand that Austrade is still currently advertising this event as a 'valuable opportunity to explore investment partnerships with Saudi Arabia in priority sectors'—services and technology, agriculture and food, resources and energy, et cetera. Will you also boycott this event, and are you still sending government officials? (Time expired)
As is publicly known, I am not attending that event. The Australian government continues to closely monitor the event. As trade minister, I will have a look at what public advice Austrade may be giving in relation to that event at present, although of course attendance at it by non-government organisations or businesses is a matter for those entities.
Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question.
I was hoping I might have got a point of order there in the last few seconds, but—
I think the minister's concluded his answer.
I'm pushing my luck a little bit. All right, my second supplementary question: Minister, if Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by the Saudi regime and this is proven by the investigation, it will only confirm their status as one of the worst abusers of human rights on the planet, including by waging a war in Yemen, which, according to the United Nations, is the largest humanitarian crisis on the planet. Minister, why is your government wanting to sell more arms and weapons technology to this regime? Will you review this in light of recent developments?
Firstly, in relation to Yemen, we urge all parties in that conflict to maintain accountable rules of engagement to prevent avoidable civilian casualties. We are deeply concerned about the situation in Yemen, particularly around renewed fighting in certain port districts. In relation to Defence industry matters, as Minister Pyne already stated publicly when he was the Minister for Defence Industry, the target markets for Defence exports are countries like the United States, Canada, the UK and New Zealand in the first instance. We are cognisant that the Middle East is a complex security and political environment—
A point of order on relevance: could the minister please address whether the government will be reviewing the status of these exports in light of the current situation?
Senator Whish-Wilson, I was listening carefully and I think the minister was being directly relevant to the question. I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question but he was being directly relevant to the subject matter of the question.
Any Defence export opportunities to the Middle East will continue to be considered and balanced under our rigorous export control system to ensure they do not prejudice Australia's defence, security and international relations and are consistent with international obligations and commitments.
My question is to the minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. In an article in this morning's Australian entitled 'Farmers fear trade backlash if embassy is moved to Jerusalem', it is revealed that the agricultural lobby has sounded the alarm over Prime Minister Morrison's overhaul of Australia's longstanding and bipartisan foreign policy. Was the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Nationals, consulted before Prime Minister Morrison made the decision, and, if so, did the Deputy Prime Minister raise any risks about the impact of the decision on Australian farmers?
That decision was a decision of cabinet and I won't be talking about that at question time.
Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.
The President of the National Farmers' Federation, Fiona Simson, has warned that the government must:
… take into consideration the impacts of any foreign policy decision, including its impact on trade …
Is Deputy Prime Minister McCormack so weak that decisions can be made by the coalition government that risk grave damage to the National Party's key constituency?
Thank you, Senator, for your question. I completely reject the premise about the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack. He has been absolutely delivering for our farmers right across regional Australia and continuing a long tradition of our party standing up for the 30 per cent of Australians who don't live in capital cities. If we want to talk about decisions made by governments that have a significant impact on rural and regional Australia, I can think of no better example than the decision by the former Labor government to ban live exports.
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
This is a question about the decision the government made and announced on Tuesday. That is what the question is about. It's not about what has occurred in the past.
You've reminded the minister of the terms of the question. The minister has 25 seconds remaining to answer.
As I was saying, governments have to make decisions around their foreign policy decisions very carefully to ensure that they don't negatively impact our export industries, not just agriculture but mining et cetera Agriculture and mining, those two industries that the other side of the Senate refuses to support, actually underpin— (Time expired)
Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question.
Isn't it clear that the Deputy Prime Minister's National Party colleague is correct when they describe him as 'an ineffective nice bloke'? Can the minister guarantee to the Senate and to Australians that Mr McCormack will still be Deputy Prime Minister this time next week?
Yes, I can. For 100 years the leadership of the National Party has been the gift of the party room. We have had 14 party leaders in 100 years. In fact passing on the National Party leadership baton is an incredibly boring process. 'Black Jack', who ended up in a tie, had to wait 18 years for Fadden to retire to assume the leadership. Even in recent times deputy leaders have waited patiently for the current leader of the National Party to retire before they proceeded to leadership, because they aspire to ensure that the leader of the National Party, whoever that may be, is able to continue the strong commitment and delivery for rural and regional Australia.
My question is to the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Fifield. Can the minister advise what percentage of the ABC budget has been allocated to regional broadcasting?
Thank you for the question. I'm advised the ABC estimates that currently over one-third of its total annual budget is invested in services to regional Australia. This expenditure includes content, transmission and other infrastructure costs. It may also be of interest to Senator Burston that ABC regional local radio is broadcast from 48 locations across Australia. The ABC also advises that it has what it believes to be the largest dedicated rural reporting workforce in the world. In addition, in 2017-18 the ABC added 80 new regional jobs through the Connecting Communities package, which supports audience and content initiatives across the organisation.
My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Businesses, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. I refer the minister to recent answers about the Liberal-National government delivering for small and family businesses. Can the minister provide me any feedback she has received from businesses in our home state of Western Australia?
I thank Senator Smith for the question. I think all of us on this side of the chamber are very pleased that today we were able to deliver on fast-tracking our tax cuts for small and medium businesses throughout Australia. The good news, as Senator Cormann has pointed out, is that, because of the strong economy that those of us on this side of the chamber, the Liberal-National side of the chamber, have put in place, we have been able to deliver those tax cuts five years earlier than planned. This means that almost three million small and medium businesses across Australia will have their tax rate reduced to 25 per cent by 2021-22. This is a great win for these Australian businesses and the nearly seven million Australians they employ. On the ground in Western Australia approximately 350,000 businesses are now going to benefit because of the work of our government.
Like Senator Smith I have had the privilege of visiting a number of these businesses. I was recently in Albany with our good friend and colleague Mr Rick Wilson. We had the opportunity to visit Southern Haulage, a great example of a small business, which began 50 years ago and has now grown to having 50 trucks and employing over 100 people. While we were talking to the owners of this fantastic family business, they were telling us about how the coalition's tax cuts would mean they can keep more of the money they generate in their back pocket but also can re-invest it back into their business so that they can continue to grow their business. They're currently at 50 trucks; they'd like to go further. They currently employ 100 people but they'd like to employ more.
Senator Smith, a supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate of specific measures that have benefited small and family businesses in Western Australia?
As Senator Smith knows, we're delivering on GST reform to the state of Western Australia. As we've noted, we've also delivered our tax cuts for small and medium businesses five years early. But, as I travel around Western Australia, I have the opportunity to visit businesses that are small craft brewers and distillers. They, of course, will benefit from the government's budget announcement to increase the alcoholic excise refund scheme cap to $100,000 per financial year from 1 July 2019. This additional tax relief to these businesses, on top of the tax cuts that they will now receive, fast-tracked through the Senate, will allow these businesses to compete on fairer terms with large beverage companies. Two of the businesses I visited in Western Australia, Wilson's brewery in Albany and Old Young's Distillery in the Swan Valley, have told me that they will benefit from measures that our government is putting in place. (Time expired)
Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any risks to the government's strong commitment to small and family businesses?
It is well known that, despite the vote on the small business tax cuts by those on the other side, they are fundamentally opposed to small and family businesses in this country growing. They actually believe that businesses should not be given a tax cut, and that is why in June this year the Labor opposition leader, Mr Shorten, announced that he would reverse the tax cuts that we were providing and business tax cuts would go back up to 27.5 per cent. That is what they believe. They believe in taking more money out of the pockets of business, while those of us on this side of the chamber believe that businesses—in particular, small and family businesses—should be able to keep as much of the money that they generate as possible, because all of the feedback that I receive is that they're able to reinvest the money they can keep back into their businesses, grow their businesses and employ more Australians.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Cormann. Several members of parliament have repeatedly expressed concerns around Australia's liquid fuel security, given we now import more than 90 per cent of our transport fuels—up from 60 per cent in 2000—and, according to Department of the Environment and Energy data, we had a mere 21 days of petrol stock, 16 days of diesel and 19 days of aviation fuel as of December 2017. In a submission to the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles, which I'm chairing, the former deputy chief of the RAAF, Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO, said:
Electric vehicles could play a significant role in improving Australia's energy security by reducing the demand for foreign sourced liquid fuels and by providing a significant increase in transport system resilience in the event of a fuel supply disruption.
Has the government given any consideration to the role electric vehicles could play in improving our fuel security?
I thank Senator Storer for his question. The government takes the issue of fuel security very seriously. A number of coalition members and senators have also raised the importance of national fuel security with the government. That's why, to help deliver affordable and reliable energy, the government is undertaking a review of Australia's liquid fuel security by the end of 2018. The comprehensive review will look at how fuel is supplied and used in Australia, including our resilience to withstand disruptions both overseas and in Australia. The review will identify whether the government should take further steps to ensure Australia's domestic fuel supply is reliable and inform our plan to return to compliance with the International Energy Agency's emergency stockholding obligations by 2026. I remind the Senate that Australia's domestic supplies of liquid fuels have not been impacted by a significant supply disruption for the past 40 years. The review has strong industry support. Making sure we aren't complacent is the prudent and proper thing to do. That should not be construed, though, as Australia having an actual fuel security problem. The government has emergency powers and an agreement with states and territories which sets out the arrangements to effectively manage a national liquid fuel emergency.
Senator Storer raised the potential contribution of electric vehicles to reducing Australia's reliance on liquid fuel. In that regard, I note that Senator Storer is actually chairing the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles to inquire into the use and manufacture of electric vehicles in Australia. No doubt we will receive some fine recommendations out of that inquiry in due course.
Senator Storer, a supplementary question.
As tensions between the US and Saudi Arabia continue to simmer over the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and threaten to push global petrol prices even higher, what is the government doing to support the uptake of electric vehicles so that we can be in more control of how much we pay for our transport fuel?
The Australian government is providing support to the rollout of electric vehicles around Australia, including financial support through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. ARENA's focus has been on supporting emerging technologies and helping to move them closer to commercial reality. Progressing new and innovative energy technologies from early-stage research and development through to commercial deployment is critical to ensure that Australia remains at the forefront of technological progress and enjoys the benefits that advances in technology can bring.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has acted as a catalyst to increase investment in clean energy investment. In the five years that the CEFC has been operating, around $5 billion of capital has been deployed, and the CEFC has directly invested in more than 110 individual transactions and delivered finance for over 5,500 smaller-scale clean energy products.
Senator Storer, a final supplementary question.
Has the government assessed the economic benefits that would flow to Australia from switching transport fuel from imported foreign oil to Australian-made electricity, also noting the cost of running an EV in Australia is around 33 cents per e-litre versus around $1.60 per litre for internal combustion engines?
As I've indicated in response to the primary question, the government has commissioned a review of liquid fuel security, and I do not want to pre-empt the conclusions and the findings and possible recommendations of the review. But I'm sure that the respective trade-offs between various energy security options will be canvassed as part of the review and form part of the recommendations that are put to the government in due course.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan. When asked yesterday about the National Party leadership, Minister Littleproud said, 'I am not interested in any leadership position.' Does that remain Minister Littleproud's position?
I find Minister Littleproud to be a very frank and open person. I'm sure the public can agree with the comments he has made, and I have no indication that they have changed.
Senator Watt, a supplementary question.
Following ongoing reports of dissatisfaction with the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister McCormack, one Nationals MP has said that Minister Littleproud is a leadership contender because:
He's the new kid on the block, the fresh apple off the tree so it doesn't have any bugs on it.
Does Deputy Prime Minister McCormack retain the support of Minister Littleproud?
I know that Senator Watt likes talking about new kids on the block, because I think, Senator Watt, you might be one yourself! You have already progressed quite far in your short career. So we're all watching with interest as you move up the ranks. I'm not sure if there are bugs on you or not, Senator Watt, but I'm sure they won't slow you down! They won't stop you trying to progress.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order.
It goes to direct relevance. I'm surprised the minister doesn't want to answer whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister retains the support of the agriculture minister. That was the question.
It is easier to keep ministers directly relevant when they are not responding to interjections from the same side of the chamber. Both are disorderly.
The answer to the question is yes, along the original answer that I gave to the question. But it's nice to see that Senator Watt is very focused on leadership issues. He's focused on challenges to others, because I'm sure that focuses his mind quite often in his role, as he moves up the ranks in the Labor Party. But what I'm focused on and I know Mr Littleproud is focused on is building things in this country—building dams and doing things for farmers. I was speaking to Minister Littleproud about those things just this morning. That is what we are focused on.
Senator Watt, a final supplementary question.
Does Deputy Prime Minister McCormack retain the support of the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan? Can Minister Canavan guarantee to the Senate and to Australians that Mr McCormack will still be Deputy Prime Minister this time next week?
Yes, I can, because Michael McCormack, the Leader of the Nationals, and the National Party team are delivering results for particularly regional Australians. Since Mr McCormack became leader, we've achieved another $1½ billion for Roads of Strategic Importance in Northern Australia, which is one of my portfolio responsibilities, along with another $2 billion—
Senator Watt on a point of order.
Yes, on relevance, Mr President. My question was simply whether Minister Canavan could guarantee that Mr McCormack will be Deputy Prime Minister this time next week.
Senator Cormann on a point of order.
I don't know how more directly relevant—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left! Only 25 minutes to go.
Clearly those opposite, because they were not actually interested in the answer, didn't listen to the directly relevant answer that was provided right up-front. If they were interested in the future of the Australian economy and the future for Australian families, rather than just political games, they would have realised that the answer was directly relevant.
I will rule on the point of order. Senator Watt, your first question was, 'Does the Deputy Prime Minister retain the support of the minister?' He was directly answering that question.
Thank you, Mr President. I thought I recollected saying yes to a yes-or-no question. So, I don't know how I could have been more directly relevant. But it did give me an opportunity to remind the Senate, the Australian people, of the great things Mr McCormack and the Nationals team are achieving for Australians.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left! I'm having trouble hearing the minister.
Of course, the other thing that has been a great achievement is the response to the record-breaking drought we are currently living through: the $1.8 billion we've put aside to help farmers, and my colleague Senator McKenzie is putting money to councils to build infrastructure projects to provide employment in local towns affected by drought. We'll just keep getting on with that.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women, Senator McKenzie: can the minister update the Senate about the Liberal-National government's progress in delivering jobs for Australians?
Yes, Senator Hume, I can. I thank you very much for your question and acknowledge your strong interest in creating jobs in our home state of Victoria. The Liberal-National government knows that the best form of financial security is having a job, and I'm pleased to report to the Senate that this government's strong economic plan continues to see more Australians in work than ever before. The latest data released today shows record highs in the total number of people employed in this country. More Australians with more jobs means a healthier economy and, more importantly, increased opportunities to build meaningful careers. We're also at record highs when it comes to full-time employment—up to 8,654,000 full-time jobs. Happily, unemployment is down to five per cent, the best result in six years and well below the rate recorded this time last year. Since September 2013, under the Liberal-National government, employment has increased by more than 1,000,100 jobs. That's a 10 per cent rise. That's more than one million Australians who now have a brighter future.
These figures are incredibly positive, because having a job doesn't just bring with it greater financial security; it means more options and greater independence for workers, especially for Australians living in regional areas, and it means growth and productivity gains for small businesses who employ them. There is always more work to do, but it's clear our strong economic plan is working. The economy is growing at a 3.4 per cent growth rate. We are the envy of the G7, and it's Australians up and down the country who are sharing in the benefits.
Senator Hume, a supplementary question.
Minister, how is the government also helping to support women's economic security?
Thank you, Senator Hume, for your supplementary question. Today's job figures continue to show that, of the more than 1.1 million jobs created since we came to office, the majority have been taken up by women. Today's results reflect a strong labour market and highlight the successes of the government's efforts to stimulate sustainable jobs growth. We continue to see record numbers of women employed in full-time work. In the most recent budget, the government announced a number of policies to further support women's economic capability and leadership. This includes $10 million for initiatives to put women in control of their financial lives as part of a $50 million fund to promote the financial capabilities of Australian consumers. And, of course, our new childcare package, which commenced from July this year, helps to support flexible work arrangements for more Australian families. We've introduced crucial flexibility measures that allow women with interrupted work patterns to make catch-up super contributions. The Liberal-National government remains— (Time expired)
Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any risks to the government's approach?
Yes, I am. It's those opposite and their hypocritical approach to women's financial security. Labor say they want to boost women's economic security, yet they pledge to scrap measures the government has introduced to provide women with flexibility and security throughout their working lives and into retirement. They cosy up to militant unions and their extreme policies. The real consequence of Labor policies, if they are elected, is that they will cost jobs and close small businesses, and this would particularly affect regional Australians who are doing it tough because of the drought. Worst of all, they continue to stand up to the—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Order, Senator O'Neill!
Senator Scullion interjecting—
Senator Scullion!
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator O'Neill, take a breath.
Thank you. There is a breathtaking cash grab which hurts the hip pockets of around 900,000 Australians and hits 30 per cent more women than men. Maybe, once they've seen sense and abandoned their dangerous proposal, we will take those opposite seriously when they say they're concerned about women's economic security. You're all talk.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that this week the government has up-ended 70 years of bipartisan foreign policy, supported a white supremacist slogan in the parliament, backflipped on its GST policy, risked one of Australia's key economic relationships and offended Australia's Pacific neighbours? Is this what the Prime Minister means when he says that a vote for the Liberals in Wentworth is a vote for stability?
The emphatic answer to all of the above is no. Let me tell you what the Australian government has done. Having inherited from the Labor Party a weakening economy, rising unemployment, a rapidly deteriorating budget position and chaos at our borders, what we have done is deliver a plan for a stronger economy and more jobs which has actually led to stronger economic growth than in any of the G7 economies in the world, stronger employment growth than was ever forecast in our previous budget, a much lower unemployment rate than had been anticipated and, indeed, a budget position that is significantly stronger than when we came into government. Today the economy is stronger. The economic growth outlook is stronger. The opportunities for Australian families to get ahead are better, and that is because more and more jobs are being created—more than a million jobs since we came into government.
What would happen under the Labor Party? The Labor Party has already announced about $200 billion worth of higher taxes on investment, on electricity, on housing and on retirees—you name it. If it moves, Labor wants to impose a higher tax on it. Of course, that would mean less investment, lower growth, fewer jobs and higher unemployment. As the unemployment goes up again, as it did under Labor before, wages would fall.
So the choice for Australians at the next election will be: do you want the country to be weaker and Australians to be poorer under Labor, or do you want the continuation of the strong economic management and strong budget management that has put the Australian economy on a stronger foundation and trajectory for the future, which is delivering better opportunities for families right around Australia to get ahead and making sure that the government funding for important public services is on a stronger, more sustainable trajectory for the future? (Time expired)
Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.
Well, less than three sitting weeks after Prime Minister Morrison deposed former Prime Minister Turnbull, the Deputy Prime Minister is now facing a challenge. Is this what the Prime Minister means when he says that a vote for the Liberals in Wentworth is a vote for stability?
I completely reject the premise of the question.
Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.
That was a very short answer. Given Prime Minister Morrison still can't tell Australians why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister and the Nationals are now moving on Deputy Prime Minister McCormack, isn't it clear that the government under the coalition is like the good old box of chocolates—you never know what you're going to get?
Here's the point: Australians actually know what they are getting under us. Under the Liberal-National Party, they're getting a stronger economy, more jobs, better opportunities to get ahead and a better budget position to fund the essential services Australian rely on. The Australian people also know what they would get under Labor. Under Labor, they would get an antibusiness, class-warfare, politics-of-envy agenda that would make Australia weaker, that would make Australians poorer. As part of Mr Shorten's deliberate business model, he seeks to turn Australian against Australian. We want to bring Australians together to make sure that all Australians have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. Mr Shorten is running an antibusiness, higher-taxing, socialist, class-warfare, politics-of-envy agenda that would leave every Australian worse off and indeed would leave the country worse off.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Fifield. Will the minister update the Senate on the cashless debit card trial? How is the government supporting communities with this initiative, including in my home state of Queensland?
Thanks, Senator McGrath. Colleagues, the Liberal-National government is committed to reducing the social harm caused by alcohol, drug abuse and gambling in areas with high levels of welfare dependency. I was very pleased that on 21 September the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 was enacted, which expands the cashless debit card trial to Hinkler, with the rollout to commence from early 2019. The act adds the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region as the fourth cashless debit card trial area and increases the limitation on numbers of participants to allow for the fourth trial site. The site will roll out in early 2019 and will operate in that region until 30 June 2020. The act also provides greater legislative consistency across all sites by embedding ministerial instrument provisions for the three existing sites into primary legislation. Finally, amendments moved by Senator Storer and supported by the government will require an independent evaluation of any review of the cashless debit card trial undertaken by the government or the department, which should be completed within six months. This builds on the previous legislation, which was passed in February 2018. It enables the extension of the cashless debit card in East Kimberley and Ceduna, and the expansion into the Goldfields in Western Australia to 30 June 2019.
The cashless debit card aims to test whether restricting the amount of cash in a community reduces the overall social harm caused by welfare-fuelled activities, which can be of harm to the individual. This is something worth pursuing.
Senator McGrath, a supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate about the level of community support for this initiative?
The Minister for Families and Social Services visited Bundaberg and Hervey Bay last week and had the opportunity to confirm the results of the almost 200 consultations that have taken place across the region. He heard firsthand from local service providers, potential participants, councils and the business community about the impacts they expect the card to have, and the overwhelming response was it's about time. The expansion to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region is an opportunity for government to test the card's flexibility as a tool to support people in non-remote locations and to help address social problems such as high youth employment, drug and alcohol abuse, and intergenerational welfare dependency. This government makes no apology for looking to find every measure that it can to reduce harm to individuals.
Senator McGrath, a final supplementary.
How is the government working towards a sustainable and reliable welfare system in contrast with alternative approaches?
The cashless debit card is also about an affordable welfare system and our belief in building a strong economy to support the services that Australian families rely on. We know that those opposite don't fully appreciate the fact that you need to have a budget which is well managed and a strong economy to support important social services provisions. As I've said previously, good economic policy and good social policy are not alternatives. They're not things that you have to choose between. You need a good economic policy to sustain and to support a good social policy. That's what this government has done. That's what this government has demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate. That is the plan that we put forward.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Sensitive communications between Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Indonesian foreign minister, Retno Marsudi, in relation to Prime Minister Morrison's decision to overturn bipartisan foreign policy have been leaked to the media. What steps will the government take to investigate the source of this leak?
As I've indicated to the chamber before when I have addressed these questions, Senator Payne, as the foreign minister, has had very positive and constructive discussions with her counterpart. I'm not aware—
Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Direct relevance. I understand the leader of the government was seeking to get a brief as the question was being asked, but the question actually goes to the leaking of an ASIO document, which has been reported in the papers.
I note that the minister has been speaking for 22 seconds. You've reminded him of the nature of the question. The minister has one minute and 38 seconds remaining to answer. Senator Cormann.
My advice is that we are very confident that this is not a leak from within government.
Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.
Just for clarification, there is an ASIO bulletin reportedly marked 'Secret—Australian eyes only' which relates to the Prime Minister's decision to overturn longstanding, bipartisan foreign policy and which has been leaked to the media. My question to the minister is: what steps will the government take to investigate the source of this leak?
Consistent with what the Prime Minister advised the House of Representatives earlier, I can advise the Senate that the Director-General of Security and head of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, has advised the Prime Minister that, at this time, there is no evidence of planned violence in response to the government's announcement regarding the location of the Australian Embassy in Israel; that ASIO as a matter of routine provides advice to Commonwealth and state governments on security matters, as it should; and that the director-general has advised the Prime Minister that he has spoken with the Federal Police commissioner and will formally refer this matter to the AFP for investigation. The government does not comment on the contents of security advice and intelligence matters. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I want to repeat, and reassure Australians, that ASIO has no evidence at this time of any planned violence in response to the government's announcement on 16 October.
Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary.
Since Mr Morrison became Prime Minister, the government has faced a number of internal leaks, including multiple unannounced policies of former Prime Minister Turnbull, the religious freedom report, sensitive communications between the Australian and Indonesian foreign affairs ministers and an ASIO bulletin reportedly marked 'Secret—AUSTEO'. Is this what the Prime Minister means when he says, 'A vote for the Liberals in Wentworth is a vote for stability'?
Well, a vote for Dave Sharma and the Liberals in Wentworth is a vote for stability, because it will help to deliver a continuation of good economic management, good budget management and a continuation of a government implementing a plan for the economy and jobs, which has delivered record employment across Australia. More people are in jobs in Australia today than ever before, and more women are in jobs today than ever before. Indeed, the proportion of working-age Australians on welfare is the lowest it has been in 20 years. That is because, as we have created more jobs and better opportunities for families around Australia to get ahead, more people have been able to get off welfare and into a job, and surely that is something the senator should be supporting, and it's a great demonstration of the successful economic and fiscal policies of this government.
My question is to the Minister representing that very popular and effective Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal-National government's investment in key freight and tourism corridors will drive economic growth for the nation?
Thank you very much for the question, Senator O'Sullivan. I recognise your longstanding interest in this area. Under the economic stewardship of the coalition, the economy has grown by 3.4 per cent through the past year. That is the best since the mining boom, and the peak of the mining boom in 2005. With it comes better jobs, and the Liberal-National party have created more than one million jobs in five years. However, we recognise that there is more to do. Good economic management helps small businesses grow. Small businesses are those great employees, those wonderful businesses that get behind our nation and our regions. That's why we're investing in inland rail to take advantage of our new trade opportunities, like those that will be created under the TPP-11. The 1,700-kilometre rail line is set to deliver jobs, cash flow and new export earnings for regional Australia. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, 'We're in the business of making small businesses—small family businesses—larger businesses.' Inland rail will help regional businesses to link up with our export markets and allow their high-quality products to reach far across the globe. By growing our economy through the trade deals and backing regional businesses, we're growing the economy and creating even more jobs.
But we're not just stopping at rail. I note that Senator Canavan mentioned earlier a $3.5 billion commitment to Roads of Strategic Importance. It's an important component of our $75 billion infrastructure investment pipeline. This program is supporting improvements in key corridors throughout key regional freight and visitor economy routes and better connecting communities. The Roads of Strategic Importance initiative will deliver rolling packages over a 10-year period. We've already shown our commitment under Roads of Strategic Importance with $400 million for the Bass Highway in Tasmania, $100 million to improve the Barton Highway and $220 million for the Bindoon Bypass in WA. We're building the infrastructure for a truly connected regional Australia.
Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question.
How will this investment improve productivity and efficiency across Australia's supply chains, particularly in my great home state of Queensland?
The Liberal-National government is committed to growing our regions and creating jobs, because when the regions thrive so does Australia. Through Roads of Strategic Importance, $1.5 billion was earmarked for key corridors across northern Australia to improve road reliability and connectivity across the supply chains for key agricultural and mining regions and to better connect communities. This investment will support major freight movements and better connect businesses to markets and export facilities. It will underpin the expansion of key local industries by building capacity and improving access and safety on these key roads. The initiative supports sustainable employment and skills development by providing ongoing opportunities and would provide certainty for businesses operating right across the north. Priorities funded through the northern Australia Roads of Strategic Importance will build on the important upgrades already progressing under the $600 million Northern Australia Roads Program and the $100 million Northern Australia Beef Roads Program, in a similar vein to the Northern Australia roads programs— (Time expired)
Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question.
Even though I know the answer to my own question, I will ask it. Is the minister aware of any risk to the government's job-creating plan?
I think it's always best to share, so let's share what the risks to our job-creating plan may be, and—no surprise—it is those opposite. While the government's action plan will promote strong investment, more jobs and higher wages, Labor just wants to tax you more. Bill Shorten's five-point plan is simple: more tax, more tax, more tax, more tax and more tax. More tax doesn't grow the economy. It doesn't guarantee schools, hospitals or Medicare. It drags the economy down, taking more of what Australians earn away from them and their families. It doesn't allow investment in key tourism and freight corridors that allow Australian businesses to export their high quality produce to the world. It doesn't allow Australians to get ahead and build a better life for themselves and their families. Labor has no plan for a stronger regional Australia.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator McAllister today relating to the Morrison Government.
As a longstanding friend of the creative industries, I'm quite worried. I think we may need to offer some sort of industry support package to the political satirists, because this government seems determined to drive them out of business by satirising itself. Prime Minister Morrison has come out and said that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for stability. He said this at the very same time—I kid you not—as his junior coalition partners, The Nationals, are plotting another leadership coup about three weeks after their last one. You can't make this stuff up. It's putting a lot of pressure on The Chaser, let me tell you. 'A vote for stability' is a pretty bold claim for a Prime Minister to make. We recall the last Prime Minister who promised stability. I don't know if you remember, but that other fellow, Mr Turnbull, the last Prime Minister, stood under a huge sign the size of a cinema screen before the last election with a big quote that said 'stable government' and he held his hands up like so. What did we get? It wasn't stable and it wasn't government. It turned out that their only plan for jobs and growth was a corporate tax cut, and they dumped that earlier this month. What about energy? We went through five separate energy policies before they settled on their current energy policy, which is basically absolutely nothing. To top it off, they changed Prime Minister after months of instability and a botched leadership coup by the Minister for Home Affairs, aided and abetted by Senator Cormann.
Given that history it is outrageously audacious for Prime Minister Morrison to claim a vote for the Liberals is a vote for stability. He is very new. We could give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps government under Prime Minister Morrison has been more stable. Let's have a look at what they've achieved this week: they've backflipped on their GST policy; they've upended 70 years of bipartisan foreign policy and risked one of Australia's key strategic economic relationships, our trade relationship with Indonesia; and they've supported a white supremacist slogan in the parliament. That was a mistake, if you believe Minister Cormann, but then they embarrassingly had to back down—and that backdown was a mistake, if you believe Mr Luke Howarth. Apparently that is what stability looks like under this government. Is it stability to appoint your scandal-prone numbers man as Assistant Treasurer, who then, surprisingly—who knew?—is embroiled within an expenses scandal? Is it stability for your environment minister pick a fight with a Nobel Peace Prize nominee in a crowded restaurant? I don't know. Maybe it's stability to spend weeks talking about bullying and harassment of women in your own party ranks—something of an achievement, because women in your organisation are fairly thin on the ground.
Where are we now? At the same time as the Prime Minister is promising a vote for stability, the National Party are plotting to install as Deputy Prime Minister a man whose most recent contribution was to resign after a very public drawn-out scandal. What do all of these things—the vote for a white supremacist slogan, the scandals, the 'maybe it's a decision; maybe it's not' half-decision to move the embassy—have in common?
They all derive from a government that is completely absorbed in itself and in its own internal divisions. They stem from a party room that is utterly unable to agree on the most basic of questions about the desired national direction for our country. They stem from a group of people who, intellectually, can't come to terms with Australia as it is now, let alone the Australia of the future. They're unable to put a plan together to respond to what's coming. They're unable to respond to the science of climate change. They're unable to respond to a changing global economy. They're unable to respond to the demand for greater equality for women and more women in public life. They are unable to respond to change.
This is a government that is completely absorbed in its own conflict, because, between them, they cannot agree on how to deal with the world as it is. It is not leading to stability; it is leading to chaos. It is leading to a paralysed government making ad hoc decisions that, in fact, endanger our national interest. There is no positive vision. They are extremely divided. Wentworth deserves better and so does Australia.
I think this is just a great topic to discuss. Let's talk about stability. Now, Senator McAllister is a fine young lady and I'm sure her memory is very good, but I need to refresh her memory. In 2007 we had a Prime Minister called Kevin Rudd, as Senator McAllister might remember. Do you remember Prime Minister Rudd, Senator McAllister? Sorry, I'll direct my remarks through the chair. He was done over ruthlessly by a lady called Julia Gillard. Remember former Senator Mark Arbib? He was involved in a stoush. Senator Farrell? He was involved in a stoush as they went through the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco days of trying to save the furniture et cetera. And here, those opposite lecture us on stability. I find it quite amazing.
We know there are a lot of ambitions in this place—people with big egos, people who want to be on the front bench. I've said before that Senator Keneally is not used to sitting up the back of the bus. She was the Premier of New South Wales and she wants to be at the front of the bus. In fact, she wants to drive the bus—no doubt about that. And now we've got Senator Watt starting to flex his muscles because he's been promoted from the back bench to the whip after a very successful political career in state politics where he lost his seat, a safe seat! What a great legacy that is!
Stability? Let's talk about stability. How stable was the Labor Party just this week when we discussed the TPP legislation? Was that stability? No, they were divided. They were forced to support it by the hierarchy, no doubt, and many opposed it. But, of course, in the typical dictatorship of the Labor Party, you do as you are told. You're not free to cross the floor like we in the National Party and the Liberal Party are, where we actually have democracy. When there's something that we're passionate about, we can express that passion on this floor, as I did with the banking royal commission. At the time when the Greens moved a motion calling for a banking royal commission, I crossed the floor and voted with the Greens. Where was Labor? You were over there opposing the royal commission, just like when we brought down a report from the Economics Committee recommending a royal commission under that very good former Labor senator from Western Australia, Mark Bishop. Where was Labor? It was opposing the royal commission. Finally you came round. I appreciate that very much and I thank you, and what is coming out of the royal commission is quite amazing.
But, of course, we're talking about leadership. There's a bloke called Mr Anthony Albanese. He wants to drive the bus as well, I can tell you. Even the Labor Party members who voted said, 'We want Albo driving the bus.' That is the message they sent. Mr Albanese is sitting there waiting to pounce. You can see that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd thing will happen again, as sure as I speak here now.
Now, I want to talk about the National Party leadership. I find all this talk in the media about a challenge to the Nationals leader, Mr Michael McCormack, the Deputy Prime Minister, quite amazing. As I said to John Stanley on Sydney radio today, I have not had one call or one visit from a colleague in the National Party saying to me, 'There's going to be a spill. Who are you going to vote for?'—not one.
Yet.
Senator O'Neill says 'yet'. But hang on, the spill's coming next week, according to some—next Tuesday or something. That's amazing—we're learning all the time—when we in the National Party have heard nothing, nothing at all. In fact, I've just heard that the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, has publicly indicated he will not challenge for the leadership of the Nationals. That defuses it straightaway.
Like Mr Morrison the day before he became PM.
When you lot got together to dispose of Kevin Rudd to put in Julia Gillard, you'd have been getting calls—
He put his arm around him one day and knifed him the next day.
Order!
Have you finished, Senator O'Neill?
Order! Please continue, Senator Williams.
I would like to, if I could, without these terrible, rude interjections from Senator O'Neill, Madam Deputy President.
I just want to know: have you finished changing leaders yet?
There's no leadership challenge. I would be game enough to say I'll bet you there'll be no leadership challenge next week.
How much?
I'll bet you.
How much?
Let's talk about a figure outside!
Order!
Gambling is illegal, by the way. Remember, I come from a family of bookmakers—don't want to break the law! But there will be no challenge. The only challenge we're seeing is what I'm reading in the media. I've not had one call— (Time expired)
During the speech that I want to make in taking note of answers given by the government today, you need to be playing, in your head, the soundtrack for The Muppet Showthe one with the little brass band sounding away, where it ends on a discordant note. Well, that's the soundtrack for this government. I used to watch The Muppet Show,and you'd only get one instalment a week. But this government is overdelivering; we're getting episodes every single day! So have the Muppet Show track playing in your head while this government is wreaking havoc, is causing chaos and is absolutely not being at all stable. We've got Prime Minister Morrison out there saying: 'Vote for Dave Sharma. Send another Liberal down here so we can continue stable government.' Let's have a look at what 'stable government' actually looked like this week.
On Tuesday, just five days before the by-election in the seat of Wentworth, which has a very large Jewish population, we had the Prime Minister say that he is going to consider up-ending 70 years of bipartisan agreement about Jerusalem. Would you believe that that is a stable government in action? It certainly didn't look really stable when we started hearing about the flurry of calls, particularly from our nearest neighbour, with a huge population, expressing considerable concern about this—the government's latest play for a few votes in Wentworth, which is supposed to be one of its safest seats. And why is it not one of their safest seats anymore? It's because they have abused the opportunity of government; they have played games with the Australian people, with our economy and our foreign policy; and they sacrificed their own Prime Minister, who was the member for that seat of Wentworth. They've caused the chaos. In the midst of that chaos, the report at the moment is that the government has spent $1.2 million stuffing the letterboxes of Wentworth with a whole lot of information, because this stable government, as it tells us it is, is fighting for its life in Wentworth. Electing Dave Sharma to send him to Canberra is not going to fix what's wrong with this government—anyone but Dave Sharma, and, preferably, our great Labor candidate, Tim Murray. He'd make a much better contribution, and I know that he'd be bringing stability in foreign policy as part of the Labor Party's conversation.
In addition to the chaos that we've seen this week, where the government have decided to play out whether they'll support foreign policy in the national interest or act in their own personal interest, we've seen that battle land on the side of the Liberal Party, against Australia's national interest.
We've also had the backflip on the GST. The GST is a pretty important policy for Australia. We've had a series of declarations from this government in the negotiations with the states—so the scale of this is quite significant—saying there would be no top-ups. Labor said that Western Australia needed its fair share of funding. We had Minister Morrison, now PM, say, 'Top-ups should not be a thing,' and suddenly this week he decided to change his mind. This is the kind of instability and uncertainty that our nation is faced with.
They've changed leaders. We had Abbott. We had Turnbull. We've got Morrison. With Morrison we are seeing this massive shift and uncertainty every single day. This is not a stable government. We made a commitment. When Labor said that the commitment to ensure that no state is worse off should be enshrined in law, around our GST, the Liberal Party just laughed at it. They said that there was no way that that should be agreed to and that they wouldn't even consider it until 2026.
What has happened this week is a situation that Labor welcomes, because we have had five years of stable leadership under Bill Shorten. We've been working hard on policies for the benefit of this nation. We remain committed to the international rule of law and stable foreign policy that is in our national interest and upholds our responsibility as a good international citizen. We would never play with the Jewish vote in Wentworth, as this Prime Minister and his team have currently undertaken in the seat of Wentworth for Saturday. The people of Wentworth should not reward this unstable government. Sending Dave Sharma will not fix it— (Time expired)
Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for reminding us about all the things that can go wrong with a government. I wonder when we are going to come to this Senate and listen to policy and policy matters and for once hear, whether Labor or Liberal, government telling us what is good in this country. When I hear words like 'instability', all I know is that, clearly, in Australia we have never seen an unstable government. This happens in other parts of the world and we know that. We should stop for a moment and consider what good is happening with this government, our government. The Morrison government is on your side—you the Australian—because of the values and the beliefs we share with Australians.
Today in question time we heard all these questions about the Middle East and about the National Party leadership. Clearly, every mum and dad out there on the streets isn't interested in those kinds of things. What they want to know is that the Morrison government, our government, is focused on making the economy stronger. Whether they're in New South Wales, where Wentworth is, whether they're in Tasmania or whether they're in my home state of South Australia, what every Australian wants to know is: 'Am I safe? Do I have a job if I need one? Is my business going to pay more or less tax?'
I look forward to the time that we make good use of our question time and talk about what the government, our government, is doing. This week we have seen the legislation of the small and family business tax cut. That has come forward five years early. This is what we need to be talking about. Nobody needs to be scared. We don't need to scare Australians. We don't need to instil fear that doesn't exist. Everybody wants to wake up and enjoy the good this country has to offer and let the leaders govern. Spills or no spills, they are part of the democracy and we have to let them happen and stop consuming our every day.
This government has started the royal commission into aged care. These are the things we need focus on: how this government, our government, is taking care of our seniors. The government is committed to our older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity and recognises the contribution that they have made to their society. These are the kinds of questions and policies that we need to be deliberating on during question time, not shouting at each other as though we have nothing else to do. Total aged-care funding is growing from $8.16 billion to $8.68 billion over the forward estimates. This is the kind of thing—the good news story—that every Australian walking on the streets needs to know.
On the GST, every state is going to be better off than before. The government's fairer GST deal leaves no state worse off and delivers real change to the system. Our government has taken the bull by the horns to address the issues that no other government has had the courage to deal with. So these are the kinds of things that, in question time, we need to spend time talking about. The economy has grown stronger. There are more jobs. Our economy is growing stronger, and every Australian in every part of this country needs to know that the economy will grow stronger and stronger, one year after the other. That is what our government is promising to do.
You don't grow an economy stronger by changing Prime Minister every couple of years, and that's exactly what we've done. What the question from Senator McAllister did was highlight a horror week for this government. We got an unbelievable response from Senator Cormann, the government's Senate leader. This was his quote. He said that Australians 'know what they are getting under us'. That just inspires me to look at their record. When we look at their record, we know they have had three prime ministers. We know they are onto their third Treasurer. We know they've already had two deputy prime ministers, and there will possibly be a third by the end of next week. This is their record when it comes to who has been their leaders—Prime Minister, Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister. You can't possibly provide the leadership that this country is looking for when you keep changing leader so regularly and keep changing the key personnel so regularly. We've suffered from that. We understand. That is why last weekend, under the Labor leadership of Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek, we clocked up five years of stable leadership. That is the real contrast between what Labor are providing and what we've seen from this rabble on the other side.
The consequences of having such instability in the government are actually ones that go to policy dysfunction. Let's have a look at the list of policy dysfunctions that this government have been responsible for. We know that, after being in government for five years, they still don't have an energy policy. They worked on a national energy guarantee for almost 12 months and they still couldn't settle that in the party room. They even promoted the person responsible for it, Josh Frydenberg, to Treasurer as a result, even though he couldn't get a policy on energy through the party room. We know that they couldn't settle on an education policy. They were at war with the Catholic sector for so long because they were short-changing them. It took, again, a change in personnel, a change in the ministry, before they could attempt to resolve that.
We also know about their issues with accountability and decision making. They decided to hand out almost half a billion dollars to a private foundation—the Great Barrier Reef Foundation—with no due process, no tender process. It was decided in a matter of days after a meeting between then Prime Minister Turnbull and now Treasurer Frydenberg. This is the type of government that they have been running. We also know that they have no climate change policy and no credibility when it comes to climate change. So, on key policy areas, there is just a level of dysfunction around this government because they change leaders so often. Because they change the key personnel so often, this is the result that you get.
Now let's look at what they've achieved this week. They obviously said to themselves on the weekend: 'We've got the Wentworth by-election on Saturday. We need a big effort in parliament. We've got to do really well and give our candidate there a platform.' What did they do on the first day? They came in here and voted for a white supremacist slogan. That was on day one. We know that they subsequently backtracked on that. We also know that they ended 70 years of bipartisanship over an important foreign policy matter. These are the types of decisions that they are willing to make because they are so desperate in Wentworth. They're willing to trash what has been a combined effort between both parties of government to ensure that we do our best in terms of foreign policy. They were prepared to trash that overnight, with very little consultation.
As a result of that, they put an important—probably Australia's most important—economic relationship at risk. They are so desperate in Wentworth that this is the type of behaviour we are seeing. We also know that they backflipped on the GST policy, and we know that they offended Australia's Pacific neighbours, with the Minister for the Environment, at the same time. You've got to say to yourself that it is only Thursday; there is still more time before the Wentworth by-election for them to make more decisions that are going to cost them votes in that by-election.
We know that part of the reason they were so desperate on Monday in terms of voting for that white supremacist slogan is that they still don't know how to handle Senator Hanson—whether to fight her or whether to coddle her. They came in on Monday and decided to coddle her on that motion. Then they turned up on Tuesday and said, 'No, we regret that; we're going to vote against it.' We also know that they're in such conflict over trying to get the result they need in Wentworth that they're willing to trash so many policy credentials that Australia has built over time. So, it is very evident that the chaos and dysfunction, the continuing change in leaders on the other side, is leading to a chaotic government, and the Australian people deserve so much better.
The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McAllister to take note of answers be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi.
Maybe in a refreshing way to finish the week, I'd actually like to say thank you to Senator Birmingham for the way he answered my questions. He was very forthright and certainly expressed the government's concern on what is a very grave matter. On 2 October, an independent Saudi journalist living in Turkey went to the Saudi embassy in Istanbul to get some papers to finalise his divorce, because he was getting remarried. His name was Jamal Khashoggi. He disappeared. The Turkish government has released tapes to the US government and to other governments, and those tapes are being widely reported, with extremely disturbing content, including content whereby supposedly a Saudi hit team were telling the consulate staff to put on headphones and music so that they couldn't hear this journalist being dismembered while he was being tortured.
This is a regime that next week is holding a massive investment summit in the Middle East, the so-called Davos of the Desert. This is an event that the Australian trade minister attended last year. At this point in time, the Australian government has plans for diplomats and bureaucrats to attend. There's also an open invitation on the website of Austrade and DFAT for Australian businesses to attend this summit. This summit is being boycotted internationally. It's a sad day when we see some of the world's biggest multinational corporations and biggest banks showing more moral fibre and more of a moral compass than some of the world's governments, like the Australian government. But the Greens and many others are calling on the Australian government to boycott this event.
More importantly, we need to reconsider the fact that this Liberal government is formally trying to negotiate a defence agreement with the Saudi government. The Greens have consistently raised issues around human rights abuses in this place over the years, most recently atrocities in Yemen, including the deaths of 55 schoolchildren targeted in a deliberate strike by United Arab Emirates coalition forces in the Yemen civil war. That's just the start of it. This is a civil war that the United Nations is saying is the biggest humanitarian crisis currently on the planet. Not only are these governments that we are trying to sell weapons and arms to but this government—this Liberal-Nationals government—have a policy to establish a defence export industry using taxpayer subsidies to sell more arms and weapons technology to these regimes.
As I've outlined today, I thank the minister for his response, and I note that he said there's an independent investigation into the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. He also said—and I think this is quite substantial—that he is reviewing advice that has been provided by Austrade and DFAT to Australian companies. I hope he pulls down the advertisements on those websites to try and get Australian businesses to attend this and I hope he goes a step further and actually boycotts this event and sends a very clear message to a brutal regime—our supposed ally—that the kinds of human rights abuses we've seen in Yemen and that have been reported in the Saudi Arabian consulate don't go unnoticed or unpunished. It's up to nations like Australia and others to take a stand on these issues. If we don't, who will?
The questions I asked today were very specific. Why are we maintaining defence relationships? What details has the Australian government got from the Saudi Arabian embassy and its counterpart here in Australia in relation to this matter? What steps will the Australian government take from here? This is a matter of international significance. I know that hardline conservatives in the US government—polar opposite in their political views to people like me and my party, the Greens—are also displaying and publicly stating their disgust in relation to the behaviour of the Saudi regime. There is much we can do, but we must send the strongest possible message that this kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable. If we're going to have a rules based order, we must send this message, and this chamber is in a position to do that. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red.
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Rice on the committee's inquiry into political interference in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Dodson to replace Senator Kitching for the committee's consideration of the 2018-19 supplementary Budget estimates on Friday, 26 October 2018
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Brown to replace Senator McCarthy for the committee's consideration of the 2018-19 supplementary Budget estimates on Monday, 22 October 2018
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the respective chairs, I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:
The list was not available at the time of publishing.
On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Gichuhi, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018.
On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 183rd report of the committee—Report of the committee visit to India and Indonesia, 2-10 August 2018and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the committee on the Commitment to the Senate issued by the Business Council of Australia together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move:
That the Senate taken note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on My Health Record system together with the Hansard record of the proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This committee inquiry received 118 submissions and we heard some very significant points of view in the committee. We held three hearings. I think that the number of submissions demonstrates the importance of My Health Record to the community and also the importance of getting it right. Also, it's very clear that the community want their concerns to be heard, and we did hear many. Although we did hear many concerns, overall it's fair to say that the purpose of the My Health Record system is supported. People recognise the benefits that a properly—and I reiterate the word 'properly'—executed digital record will have for both individuals and the broader public health for our community. If properly executed, the system may lead to improvements in the quality of health care and health outcomes for many Australians.
The committee makes 14 recommendations, which, if implemented, we certainly think would lead to significant changes to My Health Record. The report shows the need for improvement to the current legislation and, in some cases, the approach, and it was one of the bases for which Senators Di Natale and Watt moved a motion calling on the government to extend the opt-out period earlier today until the amended legislation can be passed. We talk about the opt-out period in this report. Again, I'd like to encourage the government to extend the opt-out period. That's certainly something a lot of people want to see.
A key theme of these recommendations, and something the committee kept hearing, is the need to ensure that the information in the record is used for a person's health only, not for the benefit or purposes of an employer—and we heard some concerning evidence about the possibility there; although we acknowledge that that's, in fact, not the government's intent—and/or the government to recoup revenue or any commercial purposes. The committee recommends these changes be enshrined in legislation.
Another key theme was for the Australian Digital Health Agency to, as much as possible, ensure that Australians understand their records and how to use them. It was very obvious that there are a lot of Australians who don't understand the records or how to use them. A number of witnesses noted that the record appears to be based on the assumption that individuals have a high level of health literacy. Submitters expressed concern about the ability of the average consumer to opt out of the record or set appropriate privacy settings, and they noted low levels of digital literacy among some groups of consumers. While the Australian Digital Health Agency and the Department of Health both provided evidence about the information they are providing to consumers about My Health Record, it was notable that many community and consumer groups did not feel that this was necessarily sufficient. Accordingly, the report recommends that the Australian Digital Health Agency revise its media strategy to provide more targeted comprehensive education about My Health Record.
As I articulated earlier, many people are supportive of the move to the digital health record, but we have to get it right, and that's what we note in the report. The committee has listened to the voices of Australians about My Health Record, and we encourage the government to do the same and respond to these recommendations. From the Australian Greens point of view, we remain supportive of the move to the digital health record, but we want to make sure we get it right. I encourage the government to look at these recommendations. They're put forward by the committee in the spirit of trying to make sure that we make this system as effective and useful as possible for individuals and the provision of healthcare in our community.
Before I conclude, I would like to very strongly thank, as usual, the secretariat, who, once again—truly in this instance—went above and beyond, working over the weekend so that we could get this done. The idea was that this report would be read with the bill report, to inform the debate on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill. The bill didn't come up this week but will presumably be debated the next time we're in this place. The idea is to read this report in concert with the bill. In fact, we held the two inquiries together; we didn't hold a separate bill inquiry. The evidence we got for this references report was in fact used for the bill report as well. We encourage people to please read the bill report and this report when we're engaging in that debate. So I thank the committee secretariat from the bottom of my heart for the work that they put in. As I said, it was certainly above and beyond the call of duty. I'd also like to thank all our witnesses, who again came in at fairly short notice, and we went fairly late into the evening in our hearings. I'm not sure if anybody else in the chamber is speaking on this. If nobody is, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak on the report of the Economics References Committee into the Business Council of Australia's letter to the Senate in which it encouraged, in the national interest, support for enterprise tax cuts. I rise to do so with a heavy heart. The coalition senators on this committee dissented from the Labor-led majority report. The reason my heart is so heavy is that the process adopted by the committee was, in my view, deeply disturbing. I'll explain what I mean. A group in our community offered a contribution to policy debate in this place, as we so often encourage members of the community to do, as thousands and thousands of individuals, community groups, industry groups, unions and businesses do every day. Until now, each of those contributions has been heard, considered and respectfully weighed in the minds of the people who represent the Australian people in this chamber.
In this Economics References Committee, something much darker, much more cynical happened. For the first time I know of, a single contributor, the Business Council of Australia and a handful of its business members, has been punished for their decision to say something contrary to Labor's view of economics. They have been hauled in before a references committee established purely to discredit them, waste their time, divert their resources and—this is the most important bit, in my view—provide the ultimate disincentive to contributing to public debates in the future. This is a circumstance in which the process has been the punishment. For daring to contribute a letter in our democracy, the BCA has been subjected to two separate hearings in which they were berated at length for daring to say what many of us know to be true: that business tax cuts make Australia more competitive internationally; that they equip business to invest, whether that's in more staff, in wage rises or in more equipment; that they boost the economy; and that they make Australia a more attractive place in which international companies can set up shop and employ more Australians.
Can you imagine the disincentive to participation in public issues if a private citizen making a submission to the work of this Senate were subjected to this, or if a community group, for stating a simple policy position, were the subject of days of attack?—not in the spirit of rising to better policy, but to manufacture a base political grandstanding opportunity. Can you imagine if that community group were then subjected to a confected protest from the mates of one political side, shouting down that community group as it tried to explain itself under this farcical inquisition while the chair of the committee failed to enforce order in the hearing, giving those whose behaviour defied the rules tacit support? Or can you imagine, perhaps, if a committee demanded that a community group supply information that would mean that group breached another legal obligation, with the committee then condemning the group for their compliance with that law, as though by their compliance they were somehow hiding something?
Well, that's exactly what happened in this committee. It was an utter farce. The BCA were punished for daring to contribute a letter to the public debate on a policy proposal by being required to spend two days before committee hearings, having multiple members of staff being dragged in to give evidence, enduring a staged protest to intimidate the witnesses and having a media circus created. The committee demanded the witnesses detail each of the projects in their pipeline that would go ahead if enterprise tax cuts were passed and, knowing that witnesses were limited by the ASX continuous disclosure rules from giving the information sought, those senators suggested that there is something nefarious in their compliance with the rules.
Make no mistake. This committee had one purpose: to teach business a lesson that, if they dare take on Labor's economic narrative, they will be punished. What a toxic message for democracy, for the future of community debate and for the community's engagement with the work of this parliament! What a waste of public money! Now more than ever, we need to commit to respect for the institution of democracy and build the community's trust in it so that we can have a healthy and engaged society. Labor's conduct on this inquiry has done the very opposite. It is a very sad day indeed.
by leave—I rise to speak in relation to the BCA inquiry report. I wasn't intending to speak in relation to this matter, but I understand that comments made by Senator Stoker in her contribution have cast a cloud over the proceedings in relation to this particular inquiry. As the chair of that inquiry, I feel it's important to identify the fact that this was a properly constituted inquiry into the government's proposal to reduce corporate tax rates and the BCA's commitment as to what the business community was going to do in relation to greater employment, to jobs and wages and to other investments which would flow. Of course, many people say these commitments were spurious, because not many people these days believe in the trickle-down effect. So it was important for this committee, the Senate Economics References Committee, to examine this commitment, which was given under somewhat clouded terms. We know that the commitment was provided. There were drafts of this commitment which were circulated which were much broader in their commitments, and what ultimately emerged as the BCA commitment was very much watered down and very restrictive. Nevertheless, it's important for the Australian public to be aware of the nature and detail of these commitments flowing forward.
The committee held a public hearing, and it is true that on the day there were a group of protesters who took the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to raise issues in respect of tax avoidance. The committee closed down at a particular point and then resumed later on. We continued on with the inquiry. I think the accusation that Senator Stoker has made is that threats were made to witnesses. That's not something I'm aware of. I'm not aware of the substance of that, but my recollection is that there was certainly robust questioning of witnesses during the course of the proceedings. I make no apology that claims are made about what is going to happen as a result of corporate tax cuts. The role of this committee was to sound that out, investigate those commitments and see what level of detail we could provide. At the end of the day, not a great deal of information was provided because, in my view, the commitments weren't genuine commitments that could deliver specific benefits flowing from the tax cuts. Yes, I accept that there was robust questioning of witnesses, but I reject the assertion that that indicates threatening of witnesses.
As chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, I can say that we do try to understand the gravity of the Senate process. That's an extremely important process for our country. The Senate provides a wonderful opportunity for scrutiny of a whole range of different issues. When it comes to economic matters, they are particularly important. People of Australia want us to look at these issues and get as much information on the public record as we possibly can. Of course, the benefit of Senate inquiries is that they bring a lot of sunlight into areas where it is absolutely needed.
On the relevance of this particular inquiry, as it turns out, the withdrawal of the company tax cuts made the result of the inquiry somewhat redundant. Nevertheless, it was, at the time, a very important aspect of the Senate inquiry process and a very relevant inquiry. I want to thank all of those involved in the process—the secretariat, for their contribution, the witnesses and the BCA members who appeared before the inquiry. I think they understand the importance of the inquiry. To say that it was an absolute waste of time I think casts aspersions on the role of the inquiry. It was definitely necessary at the time to look at this particular issue; I make no apologies for that. I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
I table a response to a question taken on notice by Senator Cormann during question time on 17 October 2018, asked by Senator Farrell, relating to the final report from the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answer read as follows—
Dear Mr President
I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Farrell on Wednesday 17 October, on the matter of Cabinet's consideration of the Final Report from the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel.
As stated in the Cabinet Handbook (11th edition) at paragraph 25, "The principle of collective responsibility requires the strict confidentiality of all Cabinet proceedings and documentation."
In relation to Senator Farrell's final supplementary question, as the Prime Minister has stated in the House of Representatives, his focus is on dealing with the very important issues around religious freedoms in an orderly way and in a way that is respectful to all participants.
I have copied this letter to the Prime Minister and Senator Farrell.
Kind regards
Mathias Cormann
Minister for Finance and the Public Service
October 2018
I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning designated financial entities and the Community Development Program.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document tabled on the Community Development Program.
It's very disappointing to see the government's response to this. I put the motion for the order of the production of documents to the chamber, which the chamber supported, because it's about the evaluation of the Community Development Program. Senators in this chamber will be aware—and I am sure members of the community who are playing very close attention to this issue will be aware—that we started debate on the bill to change the Community Development Program, which is highly controversial, this afternoon.
We had an inquiry into the provisions in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill to change the Community Development Program, where we heard that an evaluation had been carried out on the program, but we were being asked to consider the amendments in the bill without the benefit of seeing that evaluation. You have to ask: why? Why were we being asked to consider the bill when we had not seen the evaluation? It gets worse. During the inquiry into the amendments to the bill that is currently before the chamber, we asked the department: 'Has the evaluation of the CDP been finalised? When will the evaluation be completed? Will the evaluation be made public?' The answer that we got was: 'Yes, the evaluation has been completed. Yes, it has been completed.' They went on to say: 'The decision will be made about the appropriate release of the final evaluation report once the government has considered the report's findings.' Is it any wonder that I moved an order for the production of documents when we know that that evaluation has been completed? That is why I subsequently moved to get it tabled, knowing full well that the government would not want to release it when it would enable us to be fully informed when making decisions in this place on the Community Development Program.
So, what did this minister table today? The minister tabled a copy of the Australian National Audit Office report into the design and implementation of a community development program, which we have all seen and which has been public for quite some time. Then the government had the audacity to table the report of the Senate inquiry into the appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program. Now, of course, senators in this place participated in that inquiry and know full well what was in that inquiry. The minister then went on to note, 'There is a further evaluation report that my department is currently in the process of finalising,' when we have been told full well by the department that the report has been finalised. They went on to say, 'Prior to finalisation of this evaluation, the department is engaging with the communities involved in the fieldwork component of the evaluation'—when the department has said that it has already been finalised; bear that in mind—'and a key part of the department's evaluation principles under the evaluation framework is to work with Indigenous Australians in a respectful and culturally appropriate way.' What a joke that answer is!
If you read the committee's report and the submissions to the inquiry into the bill, you will see that witness after witness said they had not been properly consulted about the government's bill and the changes it wants to make to the Community Development Program. In fact, every witness basically rejected the changes to the CDP. Here is the government, once again, hiding behind the need to consult when the department has already said that they have finalised the evaluation and when the community have said that they had not been consulted on the CDP changes. Yet the government hides behind consultation on the finalisation of the report—a report that is deliberately not being released publicly in terms of timing so that we don't have it when we are debating this bill. It is simply outrageous that the government spends Australian taxpayers' dollars on an evaluation that won't be released in time for us to have a properly informed debate on the CDP bill. It is treating the Senate with contempt and it is treating the community with contempt that they will not release this document and will not let us see what the community said about the CDP. You can only speculate that there are things in that report which they don't want made public before we have that debate on the CDP.
Well, I am not going to give up trying to get hold of that report before we, once again, debate the CDP in this place. The debate on this bill has started—a bill which is purported to help the community but which the community does not support. Very clearly they have rejected the proposed changes by this government, which will make people's lives worse. I listened to the things that the government senators were saying, in the short debate that we had earlier today, when they were making claims about how it will mean fewer penalties. Well, it simply will not! Aboriginal people will intersect with the new process, the so-called TCF, much more frequently, leading to much higher demerit points, so they will get to the point where they are getting penalties much more quickly.
The whole thing with the current CDP process, with the huge amount of penalties that have been applied, is that the government says, 'We waive them.' Despite that, the program is still having a significant impact. The big thing they say is, 'We waive them.' They can't waive them under the new process. It is an absolute fallacy to say this will make people's lives better. It simply will not and it is an attempt to stop us, the Senate, and the broader community having access to that report when we are debating this bill. What have they got to hide? Why not release it now?
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 2) Bill 2018
This Bill enhances the integrity of Australia's tax system through implementing the Government's response to the Black Economy Taskforce's final report.
The Black Economy Taskforce was established in December 2016 to develop a whole-of-government response to tackling the black economy.
The black economy includes businesses and individuals who operate outside the tax and regulatory system and avoid their withholding and reporting obligations or deliberately under-report income.
Participation in the black economy undermines community trust in the tax system, gives some businesses an unfair competitive advantage and puts pressure on the margins of honest businesses.
Failing to report income or the under-reporting of income, are black economy activities targeted in this Bill.
The Government is committed to a fair tax system which supports honest businesses and ensures that black economy participants cannot escape paying their fair share.
Schedule 1 to this Bill introduces changes to tax deductibility rules, denying a tax deduction for certain payments where an entity such as an employer, fails to comply with their withholding and reporting obligations, encouraging non-reporting or under reporting of incomes by their employees and contractors.
Some businesses can currently claim deductions for expenses even where the business does not comply with withholding obligations in respect of the expense, such as paying undeclared cash-in-hand wages to employees or paying contractors without withholding tax where an ABN is not provided. This sends a conflicting message about the legitimacy of these actions.
Denying deductions in cases where these obligations are completely disregarded provides a strong financial disadvantage to this behaviour and will send a message that black economy behaviours are not legitimate activities.
Schedule 2 to this Bill extends the taxable payment reporting system to the road freight, security and IT industries. Contractors in these industries are considered by the Black Economy Taskforce and the ATO to be at higher risk of not reporting their income.
From 1 July 2019, entities that provide a road freight, security or IT service will be required to report to the ATO payments made to other entities that they engage to undertake that service on their behalf. Reporting these payments will improve transparency and bring reporting obligations for payments to contractors more into line with the Pay As You Go reporting obligations on employers for payments to their employees.
The taxable payment reporting system already operates in the building and construction industry, where it has resulted in improved contractor compliance. In the 2017-18 Budget, the taxable payment reporting system was also extended to the cleaning and courier industries.
The information reported to the ATO will be used for pre-filling purposes to make it easier for contractors to lodge their income tax returns; and data-matching purposes to ensure contractors comply with their tax obligations such as correctly lodging their income tax returns and meeting Business Activity Statement obligations.
The Bill also targets the illegal tobacco trade and complements legislation introduced by the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, which is designed to combat imported, illicit tobacco. Through effective tobacco control policy, Australia has become a world leader in reducing smoking rates. This has improved the health and well-being of Australians and reduced the social costs associated with smoking.
It is important to support Australia's tobacco control policies with effective measures to combat illicit tobacco, which is a major source of funding for criminal organisations, and ensure tobacco products are taxed effectively to continue reducing the prevalence of smoking.
Schedule 3 is part of a suite of measures the Government announced in the 2018-19 Budget to combat illicit tobacco. It moves the taxing point of domestically manufactured tobacco to the point of manufacture rather than when the tobacco enters home consumption.
This schedule in conjunction with the Bill introduced by the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs creates a comprehensive approach to stop tobacco leakage from warehouses, which is the primary cause of the illicit tobacco trade. Stopping warehouse leakage will withdraw a major source of funding for organised crime and remove the supply of illicit tobacco to the market.
Full details of these measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at Manufacture) Bill 2018
This Bill and schedule 3 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 are part of a package of measures announced in the 2018-19 Budget implementing recommendations of the Black Economy Taskforce to disrupt and deter the illicit tobacco market.
This Bill alters the Excise Tariff Act 1901 to enable the calculation of duty payable once the taxing point is moved under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 2) Bill 2018.
While there is currently no domestic tobacco manufacturing, this Bill complements legislation introduced by the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, which is designed to combat the evasion of duty in respect of illegally imported tobacco.
As well as continuing to reduce the prevalence of smoking and ensuring tobacco products are taxed correctly, it is also important to stop the illicit tobacco trade. This Bill, in conjunction with the Black Economy package and the Bill introduced by the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, creates a comprehensive approach to stop tobacco leakage from warehouses, which is the primary cause of the illicit tobacco trade.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2018 MEASURES NO. 5) BILL 2018
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill builds on the Government's commitment to improve Australia's financial services taxation regime by setting an appropriate legislative framework for what is the largest managed funds industry in our region.
This Bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to update the list of specifically listed deductible gift recipients, and to extend deductible gift recipient status to entities promoting Indigenous languages.
Finally, this Bill makes changes to intellection property arrangements.
Schedule 1 to this Bill contains a package of technical amendments to improve the operation of the new tax system for managed investment trusts (commonly referred to as the attribution tax regime). This regime was designed to give greater certainty to investors in managed funds, reduce compliance costs for the funds and enhance overall the competitiveness of Australia's funds management industry.
This Bill progresses important reforms that ensure the new tax system for managed investment trusts operates as intended.
This Bill will assist entities seeking to opt into the attribution tax regime by clarifying the intent of the law and providing greater alignment in the tax outcomes of managed investment trusts and attribution managed investment trusts.
This Bill delivers on the industry's concerns by clarifying certain aspects of the law. It prioritises a package of technical amendments that will provide industry with increased investment certainty, while still ensuring the integrity of the tax system.
The Government's commitment to progressing these amendments demonstrates our ability to work closely with industry to ensure the policy settings are appropriate, while balancing the need to protect the integrity of the tax system.
Schedule 2 to this Bill updates the list of specifically listed deductible gift recipient to include: Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund; Australian Women Donors Network; Paul Ramsay Foundation Limited; The Q Foundation Trust; Smile Like Drake Foundation Limited; and Victorian Pride Centre Limited.
Taxpayers who make gifts or donations of $2 or more to a deductible gift recipient can claim an income tax deduction.
Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund is a registered charity established to support projects where sport is the vehicle to achieve charitable aims.
By granting deductible gift recipient status to Australian Women Donors Network, the Government is supporting the organisation to provide a voice for gender inclusive philanthropy across all focus areas including education, health, disability, youth and the arts.
Paul Ramsay Foundation Limited is a registered charity established to be the recipient of the Ramsay bequest from the Paul Ramsay Foundation to pursue one or more of the following charitable purposes in Australia: advancing health, advancing education and advancing social or public welfare.
The Q Foundation Trust is a registered charity with the principal purpose of advancing education and engagement in science and technology in Australia.
By granting deductible gift recipient status to Smile Like Drake Foundation Limited, the Government is supporting research into preventing drowning and provides water safety education programs for schools.
Lastly, Victorian Pride Centre Limited is a registered charity established to own and operate a centre in the State of Victoria that will facilitate and host support services, facilities and resources for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or intersex community.
Specifically listing these will give the organisations the certainty they need to fund raise successfully.
Schedule 3 to this Bill extends deductible gift recipient status to entities promoting Indigenous languages. The extension of this status provides appropriate assistance through the tax system for the public to make donations to these organisations.
This measure will enable entities promoting Indigenous languages to be endorsed as deductible gift recipients, under the category of cultural organisations, subject to the entities meeting the other requirements for deductible gift recipient status. This will enable taxpayers to claim an income tax deduction for donations of $2 or more to these entities.
Prior to these amendments, deductible gift recipient support was given to 'cultural organisations' that have a principal purpose of, among other functions, promoting the arts of Indigenous persons. However, this did not include organisations with a principal purpose of promoting the languages of Indigenous persons.
There are estimated to be 250 original Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and over 600 dialects. The Government has a range of other measures in place to prevent the loss of these languages.
Schedule 4 to this Bill repeals subsection 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The Productivity Commission recommended repealing subsection 51(3) in its 2016 Intellectual Property Arrangements Inquiry Report. The 2015 Competition Policy Review also recommended repealing subsection 51(3).
Subsection 51(3) exempts licensing or assignment of intellectual property from most of the prohibitions on anti-competitive conduct in the Competition and Consumer Act. The Productivity Commission found that the rationale for the exemption has largely fallen away, as intellectual property rights and competition are no longer thought to be in fundamental conflict. Intellectual property rights do not, in and of themselves, have significant competition implications.
The measure will ensure that commercial transactions involving intellectual property rights, including the assignment and licensing of such rights, will be subject to the prohibitions on anti-competitive conduct in the Competition and Consumer Act.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will issue guidance on the application of the competition law to intellectual property rights, as recommended by the Productivity Commission.
State and territory approval for the measure was sought, as required by the 1995 Conduct Code Agreement. All jurisdictions support the measure.
The measure will take effect the day after the end of the period of six months beginning on the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent. This transitional period will allow individuals and businesses time to review existing arrangements to ensure they comply with the competition law. If necessary, they will be able to apply to the ACCC for authorisation of existing arrangements. Authorisation removes the risk of legal action under the competition provisions and may be granted by the ACCC where conduct is likely to provide a net public benefit.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
MARITIME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018
SECOND READING SPEECH
Australia is heavily reliant on shipping and maritime trade. International shipping carries ninety-nine per cent of our imports and exports by weight.
Australia's economy also relies on our domestic maritime industries, including for tourism, transport, and for fishing and aquaculture.
As a government, it is our duty to ensure Australia's regulatory framework for maritime safety and protection of the marine environment functions efficiently, effectively and is consistent with international law.
This framework is vital to ensure the safe operation of vessels in Australia's waters and to ensure seafarers and passengers aboard these vessels return home safely.
This framework is also vital for protecting Australia's pristine coastal and marine environments, including our internationally recognised areas of outstanding natural significant, such as the Great Barrier Reef.
Today I present the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2018.
The Bill makes important, machinery changes to the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 and Navigation Act 2012.
These are Acts that establish key parts of Australia's regulatory framework for maritime safety and protection of the marine environment.
Primarily, the Bill will insert a definition for the term regulations into each Act to clarify that this term includes legislative instruments known as Marine Orders.
This clarification is necessary to ensure the regulatory framework operates as intended.
Provisions of the each Act rely on vessel owners and individual seafarers operating or working on vessels complying with requirements of regulations, such as requirements to hold valid safety or pollution certificates.
Marine Orders deal with detailed technical and operational requirements and processes and are used to give effect to international obligations and standards.
Use of Marine Orders is a long-standing and accepted regulatory practice with which the shipping industry is familiar.
Marine Orders can already be made under each Act for almost any matter that can be provided for by regulations. Limited exceptions include matters which affect the coverage, rather than the detail, of the regulatory framework, such as the definition of a domestic commercial vessel.
Marine Orders are used to set out potentially complex standards and requirements in the clearest and simplest manner possible to help the maritime industry to understand and comply with their obligations.
Use of Marine Orders also ensures these requirements are set out in a consistent and familiar way that is easily and freely accessible in one place on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's website.
They are also registered and freely available on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Marine Orders are legislative instruments for the purpose of the Legislation Act 2003, which means they are subject to crucial Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.
The ongoing use of Marine Orders remains appropriate and embeds agility in the legislative framework, ensuring legislation keeps up to date with technical and operational advances in maritime safety and environmental protection.
Importantly, the Explanatory Memoranda for the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 and the Navigation Bill 2012 make clear that policy makers intended Marine Orders, rather than the Acts or regulations, to continue to be used to set out these operational and technical matters and requirements, in line with longstanding regulatory practice.
In practical terms, the machinery changes made by the Bill will have no impact on maritime industries operating under these Acts. Individual seafarers and vessel owners will continue to comply with the same requirements set out under the existing Acts, regulations and Marine Orders in the same manner as today, and continue to be subject to the existing compliance framework.
Legally however, the Bill is necessary to provide important clarity and certainty about the existing obligations for individual seafarers and vessel owners regulated by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority under the Acts.
I commend the Bill
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill is now adjourned to 12 November 2018 , in accordance with standing order 111.
I rise to speak on the Australian Greens' Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018. This week is Anti-Poverty Week, and we have seen many reports this week from a broad range of organisations that have been clearly articulating the rate, level and impacts of poverty in this country. We have seen that, despite economic growth, poverty levels have remained entrenched at high levels for many years now. This bill will provide additional financial assistance to single recipients of the basic rate of the Newstart allowance, Austudy, sickness allowance, special benefit, widow allowance, crisis payment and youth allowance, increasing them by $75 a week. The bill will provide additional financial assistance to single recipients of the maximum rate of away-from-home rates of youth allowance, again to the amount of $75 a week. The intention is for ABSTUDY to be increased in the amount of $75 a week as well. However, this payment is based in policy rather than in legislation. This bill will also change the indexation arrangements for these payments and other income support payments to bring them into line with the higher of the CPI—the consumer price index—or the pensioner and beneficiary living cost index—the PBLCI.
Newstart, youth allowance and the other abovementioned payments have not had a real increase in nearly 25 years. The last time they had a real increase was in 1994. We are increasing the indexation to bring it into line with the pension rate because one of the reasons why these payments have fallen so far behind the real cost of living is that their indexation is not the same as the pension indexation rate. The evidence is overwhelming and it is clear. An increase to these payments will assist in alleviating poverty, help reduce income inequality and help people who are studying and seeking employment.
There are three million people in this country living in poverty, and that is a great shame to this country. This figure includes over 730,000 children. In a wealthy nation like ours, this is simply not good enough. In this wealthy country, no-one should be left behind. All of us should be able to live a good life with access to social services regardless of our postcode, our parents or our bank balance. Today I hope that we can together do something tangible for our community, for children living in poverty, for families, for students, for disabled people and for single parents, to help them pay their bills, put food on the table and pay their rent.
All people should be able to fully participate in our society. At the moment, people can't, because when you're living in poverty you just can't fully participate in our community. Without a sufficient income or sufficient wealth, we do not have a fair, just or productive community. Recipients of these income support payments face barriers to being able to participate in our society and to cover basic living costs. Newstart and youth allowance don't cover the necessities—housing, food, transport, health care and utilities. People on income support are skipping meals. We've seen that in evidence from people that talk of their lived experience. They're going without medication, they're not filling their scripts, they avoid using their heaters because they cannot pay their bills, and they can't pay their rent. Income inequality creates significant barriers to an individual's physical and mental wellbeing, societal cohesion and stability, and economic growth and productivity—and we've heard that from many organisations.
ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, and the University of New South Wales have just released their report on inequality, entitled Inequality in Australia 2018. This report highlighted that those living on Newstart have very limited incomes. Specifically, it found that 63 per cent of Newstart recipient households are in the lowest five per cent of incomes. The report also found, with regard to income inequality, that someone in the top one per cent of the income scale earns more in a fortnight than someone in the lowest five per cent earns in a year. A strong societal safety net is key to addressing income inequality. It ensures that, when people fall on hard times, there are supports in place to help them when they need it most. Allowance payments need to be increased as a matter of urgency so that people receiving unemployment and student payments have the support they need, as they are facing some of the highest rates of poverty.
The ACOSS report Poverty in Australia 2018 found there are more than three million people living below the poverty line—as I said, including over 739,000 children. The Salvation Army's national 2018 Economic and Social Impact Survey reported that, after paying for accommodation, Newstart recipients were left with only $17 a day to cover their other expenses. I've tried living on that $17 a day, and you can't.
A University of New South Wales report released in 2017, New minimum income for healthy living budget standards for low-paid and unemployed Australians, found that the long-term decline in the adequacy of income support payments is 'a major policy failure that needs to be redressed'. This report, which builds on previous Australian and recent international research to develop a set of budget standards for low-paid and unemployed Australians and their families, outlined just how far Newstart is falling behind. The report found that those out of work and reliant on Newstart and safety net provisions fall short of estimated budget standards by $96 a week for a single person.
The National Sustainable Development Council, with the Monash Sustainable Development Institute, publish the Transforming Australia: SDG progress report, which outlines our progress towards meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. The report found that, of our income support payments, only the pension is currently keeping up with the poverty line. It found that people on Newstart who would have been on the poverty line in the year 2000 were 20 per cent below the poverty line by 2014. Single recipients of the payment without dependants were worse off, being more than 25 per cent below the poverty line by 2014. The report attributes the difference between the pension and Newstart, as well as other allowances, mostly to indexation rules, which this bill seeks to rectify.
Research conducted by Relationships Australia entitled Is Australia experiencing an epidemic of loneliness? found that poverty and unemployment are significantly associated with loneliness, and that lonely people make greater use of the health system. Lack of employment and/or access to the social safety net is associated with a higher risk of loneliness for both men and women. Should it really come as any surprise that people living in poverty are experiencing loneliness and social isolation? Should it come as any surprise that people who can't get out and about in their community, due to a lack of resources, and who are unable to participate in the broader community because they are living below the poverty line are isolated? They can't get out with their friends or join the local sporting club or do many of the things that we take for granted. They are told again and again by this government that they should just go out and get a job, despite the fact that the jobs aren't there.
Imagine the impact of getting 20 rejections a month for jobs or sometimes not even getting a response to your application. I've lost count of the number of people who have told me they've put in an application and not even got a response or an acknowledgment. Older Australians have told me of applying for jobs and not getting a response and so they've rung up where they've applied. In one instance, it involved stacking shelves and they were told the job was gone. But then, days later, they saw online that the job was being advertised. So they were being actively discriminated against. The older gentleman who told me this story was devastated that he was unable to find work. He had been going above and beyond the requirements for seeking jobs. That has a distinct impact on your mental health.
The ACOSS and Jobs Australia report Faces of unemployment highlights exactly how difficult life is for people trying to find a job on Newstart. In May this year, figures showed—and these are believed to be conservative—that there were eight unemployed or underemployed people for every job vacancy and that 46 per cent of Newstart recipients are on the payment for over two years. This is not a transition payment any longer. Whenever we talk about this the government's response is that it's a 'transition payment'. Well, those figures demonstrate that it is simply not a transition payment. People are stuck living on it despite their best efforts to try to find work. Forty-six per cent are on the payment for over two years. I'll repeat: this is no longer a transition payment.
Living in poverty makes it harder and harder for those people to find work. I've asked time and again whether ministers in this government could live on $38 a day. Not once have we got an answer to say, 'Actually, I'd find it hard.' Not once. Not once have they responded that way when I've asked. They trot out the story that Newstart is supposed to be designed for transitioning into work. I've just highlighted how hard it is to live on $38 a day for over two years, and that's before you take out rent. It's because there are limited jobs available. People are living in poverty—dire poverty in many cases. This is the government gaslighting people. They are gaslighting people looking for work, telling them just to get a job and telling them that Newstart is just a transition payment when that is simply not true—and the figures bear that out.
This report highlights demographic groups stuck on Newstart and youth allowance payments long term and the failure of the current employment services to help particular and certain groups. People over 45 years old are the largest group of those in long-term unemployment. It is obvious the system is not supporting them. Those with disabilities are forced to live on Newstart long term. They're forced to prove they can't find work and live on Newstart and are not considered eligible for DSP. Of course, our First Nations people are disproportionately affected by this system that is simply not helping them to find work. In fact, as I was just referring to earlier in this chamber, they are discriminated against through the CDP program.
Faces of unemployment also shows how punitive and demeaning our employment framework is. We have one of the hardest compliance regimes and the harshest activity requirements for people looking for work, yet we spend less than half of the OECD average on employment assistance and services. Poverty undermines access to education and training, and educational outcomes are directly correlated with socioeconomic status. Poverty limits access to safe, secure and appropriate housing, transport, employment outcomes, child care and many other aspects of full participation in our society. Poverty has a devastating impact on children and their wellbeing. Children and young people deprived of food, clothes and other materials have reduced engagement with school, sometimes due to hunger, shame or being excluded or marginalised. It impacts children's development, education and, eventually, their long-term employment opportunities. Our social safety net should provide those unable to find paid work with a liveable income until they find employment. This is particularly important when finding work is difficult for many and poverty is a barrier to finding work. The government should not be adding to this stress by making it impossible for these people trying to survive on these payments, by making it more difficult for them to afford housing, food, transport and health care, among other things.
Increasing Newstart and related payments and amending the indexation arrangements will help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of Australians. The money spent on increasing these payments will also go straight back into the economy as much-needed goods and services are bought. Deloitte Access Economics recently released research showing that increasing the Newstart payment by $75 a week would boost the Australian economy by over $4 billion as a result of extra spending, because there are so many people living in deprivation that that extra money would go straight into buying those essential goods and services.
The government keeps spouting the same old tired lines about the best form of welfare being a job, refusing to acknowledge that poverty is in itself a barrier to employment and that there are not enough jobs out there. Anglicare Australia's Jobs availability snapshot 2018, released again this week, because it's Anti-Poverty Week, shows that in May 2018 there were 110,735 jobseekers with barriers to work but only 14 per cent of the jobs advertised were entry level, or what they call level 5 jobs. In other words, there are between four and five people competing for each entry-level job across Australia. The snapshot is invaluable in bursting open the government's perpetuated myth that jobseekers could get a job if they tried hard. Well, there are not enough jobs, no matter how hard they try.
And it doesn't end there. The figures are actually worse when you look at the state and territory breakdowns. The ratio of disadvantaged jobseekers to entry-level vacancies was 11.86 in Tasmania, 8.48 in South Australia and 5.93 in Western Australia, my home state. Fifty-one per cent of the respondents to the Salvation Army's national Economic and Social Impact Survey 2018 recorded that finding employment or getting into education and training was their greatest challenge on a day-to-day basis.
It is time to raise the rate of Newstart. We have well and truly passed that point. I ask this place to support this bill. I beg this place to support this bill. People in this country cannot survive on Newstart. Young people cannot survive on youth allowance. It is well past time that we increased the rate of Newstart. Seventy-five dollars a day won't magically fix everything—I'm not naive enough to believe that—but it will significantly help those people who are struggling to find work, who are struggling to make ends meet, and it will help ensure that children are not living in deprivation in this country. It is to the shame of this nation that children live in poverty, that we are unwilling to increase the scandalously low income support payments for Australians. We are a wealthy nation. We can afford it. We need to increase Newstart and youth allowance and the other payments covered in this bill. I urge this chamber to support this bill.
It's extraordinary, isn't it, when you travel overseas and you see the difference in the standard of living between Australia, our home, and other countries. Sometimes you'll go to a place and you'll think, 'Wow, this is wonderful,' but you scratch the surface and you see underneath it the devastating poverty that not just keeps people down, keeps their standards of living low, but actually affects the quality of their lives so profoundly that you know that they can never transform their lives; they will never get out of that trap.
It is quite moving: it's always when you travel and you come home that you realise just how extraordinarily lucky we are in this country to have the opportunities that we do, that we are such a prosperous and successful society and how important it is to maintain that prosperity and that success. One of the reasons I joined the Liberal Party was the fundamental belief that I hold dear, and that I know my party holds dear, that a civilised society is essentially defined by its ability to look after those who can't look after themselves. We have a responsibility there. Whether the people are disabled or whether they are going through a particularly difficult time for one reason or another—such as a marriage breakdown, a loss of employment, an accident or whatever it might be—when people are unable to look after themselves we must do so. It is so important. Everything that we do, as part of this government, takes that very, very seriously. It is our primary responsibility not just to see our economy grow, thrive and flourish but to make sure that those who cannot look after themselves are looked after.
This is a government that I believe takes poverty extremely seriously. We want all Australian families to enjoy the highest quality of life that we can possibly enable for them. That is why we are so focused on growth and on jobs. When we talk about growth and jobs, they're conceptual ideas. Why are we interested in growth and why are we interested in jobs? It's because jobs and growth provide an improved standard of living not just for those at high incomes and not even just for those at medium incomes but for everybody who can participate. For everybody who can get a job, their standard of living improves. We know that the best way to reduce poverty—just like the best form of welfare, Senator Siewert—is, in fact, a job. Getting people into work is vital in improving the standard of living for Australians and for their families. Getting a job is a transformative moment in every person's life.
In Australia, we have a very comprehensive and targeted welfare system that is there to assist those who are doing it tough. At the same time, we have to be fair to taxpayers as well as to welfare recipients, because we have to understand that every dollar that is spent on welfare is a contribution from the taxpayer. There is no magic pudding; the money has to come from somewhere. We want a fair go for taxpayers. That's why our welfare system needs to be targeted to those who need it, not those who would like to have it. It needs to be targeted, sustainable and in line with community expectations.
In order to help people who are doing it tough in the future, it is the responsibility of the government of today to ensure that the welfare system is sustainable. The Morrison government's economic management is so very important to ensuring that we have a social safety net that we can rely on so that it can continue to provide into the future that support that those most in need depend upon. The government wants a welfare system that supports our most vulnerable and encourages those who are capable of work or study to do so. Most importantly, it reduces intergenerational welfare dependency. We also need to ensure that the system is sustainable into the future.
At the very core of our government's social services agenda is a drive to support people to move from welfare to work and to achieve the positive life outcomes that come not just from the additional income but from the dignity of work itself and from the feeling that you are making a contribution and that that contribution is valued. The government wants to bring about a relentless focus on work and create opportunities for those most vulnerable people whereas the opposition simply want to pay and then walk away. That's not what we're here to do.
The best form of welfare, as I have said—as everybody on this side of the chamber has said, over and over again—is a job. And this government has seen the largest increase in jobs for at least a decade, since the global financial crisis. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created in the last five years alone since the coalition came into power, around 400,000 of those in the last 12 months, and 100,000 of them went to young people. That's the highest rate of youth employment in decades. In fact, I think it might be a record. The female participation rate is higher than it's ever been before. There were 230,000 fewer working-age recipients on income support payments between June 2014 and June 2018. That's 230,000 lives that have been transformed—off the welfare wagon and into work and the dignity that work provides.
The proportion of working-age Australians now dependent on welfare has fallen to 15.1 per cent, and that is the lowest level in 25 years, something I'm particularly proud of. Prominent labour market economist Professor Mark Wooden, who is the director of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics survey—the HILDA survey, which you may have heard of before—says that growth in wages has far outstripped inflation over the last decade. And over the last decade, to June 2018, wages have in fact risen by 31 per cent whereas inflation has risen by 22 per cent in that same period. That's how we measure increases in the standard of living. Accordingly, Australians have in fact all experienced real gains in their standard of living. The Productivity Commission's recent report on rising inequality, which had a question mark at the end of its title, shows that those who are most at risk of poverty are jobless households. So, employment is the first and major indicator of risk of poverty. That's why this government focuses on the most disadvantaged in our society, to help them change their circumstances, get them into study, get them into training, get them a job and help them transform their lives and the lives of their families.
The government remains focused on jobs growth and committed to a range of programs, such as the very innovative Try, Test and Learn Fund, which supports disadvantaged individuals, families and communities, which ultimately breaks the cycle of intergenerational welfare dependence. The Try, Test and Learn Fund was based on the New Zealand experience, which I think is a fascinating one. It was about early investment into a particularly vulnerable cohort, whether it was unwed teenage mothers, for instance—I'm just pulling an example off the top of my head. You might say that that particular cohort of 300 people will cost the government purse $1 million each over their lifetime. That's what they tend to do, on average. Wouldn't it be better to invest in those people early on—to invest in their study, invest in their training, make sure that they have appropriate living accommodation, make sure that they have appropriate childcare arrangements, to give them the best opportunity to become contributing members of society rather than dependent members of society? I think this is a really fascinating project that they have done in New Zealand, with great effect, and I'm really pleased to see the Australian government taking on these types of programs in Australia as well. They are not without their risks. They're not a panacea. But they can transform lives, even if it's only one life at a time. I think it's a fantastic initiative.
So, we are moving in the right direction, but there is still so much to do. We have a very strong social safety net here in Australia to help those who are doing it tough, and the government is committing to assisting those who need help with that social safety net and encouraging those who can work to do so. We can provide the essential services that Australians rely on only because our economic management is so good. Without that strong economic management we wouldn't be able to afford essential services like Medicare, like the PBS, like the NDIS and like quality education—good, solid economic management, growing the pie, raising living standards for all. We wouldn't be able to afford those essential services.
Australia's tax and transfer system consistently reduces income inequality and alleviates poverty. We have one of the most targeted and efficient welfare transfer systems in the world. It's means tested and has a much greater proportion of payments than in any other country in the OECD. The government spends more than a third of its Commonwealth budget on social services and welfare. The bottom 20 per cent of households by income receive by far the highest amount of social assistance benefits in cash—$517 per week on average—with the highest 20 per cent of households by income receiving by far the least at only $28 per week. So the wellbeing of vulnerable Australians remains a high priority for the Australian government, and this year the Department of Social Services will provide around $2 billion in grants to more than 2,500 organisations that are specifically set up to help our most vulnerable Australians.
One of the leading indicators of poverty is housing, and that is particularly so for housing stresses most commonly seen in sole-parent families. It is an economic indicator of financial security, particularly for women, older women in particular. This government has a plan to improve housing outcomes for Australians across the housing spectrum by unlocking supply of housing, creating the right incentives and improving outcomes for those most in need. We're not talking about first home buyer grants or anything like that. That is not what we are dealing with. We are not talking about giving kids who have just finished university a wad of cash so that they can go and put their deposit down on their first home in Woollahra. This is more important than that. We are talking about things like providing $1.5 billion annually through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, the NHHA, to states and territories so that they can provide community and social housing. We have a $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility. There is a First Home Super Saver Scheme, which, rather than a wad of cash given to you by the government, is an incentive whereby first home buyers can invest more in their superannuation in a tax-friendly environment and then access that excess savings above and beyond the retirement savings that are compulsory in that tax-affected vehicle to help them make that first deposit on their first home. There is also a $6 million investment to support the Homes for Homes initiative, which is $10 million to develop social impact investments to help young people most at risk of homelessness. There are some very interesting projects that are also being done at state levels here, and I tip my hat at this point to the Sacred Heart Mission in Victoria, who, in conjunction with the Victorian government, have done the first social impact bond for homeless people to try to lift them out of that poverty trap, lift them out of homelessness, get them into work and give them productive and contributive lives.
Newstart is what Senator Siewert is most concerned about here. As I said, the coalition knows that a job is by far the best form of a welfare. The government wants a sustainable welfare system that supports the most vulnerable but encourages those who are capable to work and study to do so and reduces that intergenerational welfare dependency. Newstart is primarily a payment designed to assist people in transition to the labour market. It is not supposed to be a sustainable lifestyle choice. For this reason, Newstart recipients must earn income from work or other sources before their payment is affected. Around two-thirds of those who are granted Newstart exit income support within 12 months. Over 99 per cent of Newstart recipients receive more than just the base rate of Newstart. Their payments might include the energy supplement. They might include rent assistance for those in the private rental market. They also may get the family tax benefit, if they are raising children. The government remains committed to ensuring that there are social security payments and that they are well targeted and sustainable into the future.
Those opposite have a policy to undertake a root-and-branch review of Newstart and other allowances, but it is clearly a commitment to do exactly nothing. The only difference between Labor and the coalition on Newstart payments is that the coalition are able to maintain the sustainability of the welfare system into the future because of our strong budgetary management and the work that we've done in reforming and rebalancing our tax-transfer system. The Productivity Commission's research paper that I mentioned earlier, Rising inequality? A stocktake of the evidence, was released on 28 August this year. It showed that households across the entire income distribution have in fact benefited greatly from Australia's 27-year period of uninterrupted economic growth.
This 27-year period of uninterrupted economic growth has delivered income growth for the average Australian household in every single income decile and has led to improved living standards. The report also shows that in recent years income inequality has remained relatively stable. One reason for that is our highly targeted tax-transfer system that reduces inequality. The commission found that, over nearly three decades, income inequality had risen only slightly in Australia. In 2015-16, analysis from the ABS, the Survey of income and housing, found that Australia's level of inequality, which is measured by something called the Gini coefficient, was 0.32. Let's not go into the intricacies of the Gini coefficient, but what we can say is that Australia's level of inequality is close to the OECD country average. In fact, most OECD countries have experienced rising income inequality in recent decades at a much faster pace than Australia.
When measuring income inequality using consumption rather than income, the commission found that Australia's overall inequality is around 30 per cent lower than that for disposable household income, and that's because consumption is a far more expansive measure and picks up on other in-kind transfers—things like health, education, childcare subsidies and government housing,—rather than the more basic measures of inequality that we tend to call upon for political convenience. The commission found that the risk of economic disadvantage is, in fact, becoming entrenched. This is one of the government's key concerns. It's particularly pronounced for children who are living in jobless households. For us, that confirms the soundness of the government's approach to addressing poverty and disadvantage and to maximising access to as many opportunities to get out of the welfare trap as possible.
Social security welfare is estimated to cost over $176 billion in 2018-19. That represents more than one in three dollars, or 36 per cent, of all spending by the Australian government. Under Labor, social security and welfare were growing at an average of 6.2 per cent per year—much faster than total tax revenues, which were growing at 3.3 per cent per year. That was clearly an unsustainable position. Under the coalition, social security and welfare have been growing, on average, at 2.9 per cent per year, which is lower than the growth in total tax revenues of 5.3 per cent per year. That is sustainable, and it actually includes expenditure on the NDIS. That's why we are so determined to make sure that our economy continues to grow and that we continue to thrive and to prosper as a nation—because it grows the pie for all. When the pie grows for all, it means standards of living increase and there is more money to spend on essential services like the NDIS, the health system, Medicare, the PBS and the pension. To make sure Australian families, pensioners and those in need get the support that they need when they need it, we have to ensure our welfare system is, most importantly, sustainable.
The ACOSS report on poverty that was referred to by Senator Siewert shows that the rate of relative income poverty in fact declined by more than one percentage point from 14.4 per cent in 2007-08 to 13.2 per cent in 2015-16. While the government welcome that improvement, we understand that the problem with many income poverty measures, including ACOSS's, is that they don't reflect people's actual living standards, and what matters is, in fact, living standards. We know that, over the decade to June 2018, wages have risen by 31 per cent whereas inflation has risen by only 22 per cent. That's a rise in living standards. Accordingly, Australians have experienced real gains in their living standards, reducing poverty. When we talk about reducing poverty, we want to put policies in place that will transform lives and that will allow individuals a chance to grow, experience the dignity of work, thrive and flourish.
I will ultimately be speaking against this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018, but I do want to take the opportunity to outline my very real concerns and those of the opposition as to the need for an increase in the Newstart rate. I want to make very clear at the outset that there is no disagreement whatsoever from the federal opposition that the current Newstart rate is too low. However, for reasons that I will explain over the course of this contribution, we don't believe that the bill that the Greens are putting forward here is the way to deal with the very real issues that people receiving Newstart face.
There have already been some contributions in this debate which have acknowledged the rising level of inequality that we see in Australia. While that rising level of inequality is obviously very disturbing, what is good is to see a growing acknowledgement of that across the community. This is something that many people on our side of politics have been trying to draw to the attention of the community, the media and the government for many years now, and it's only in recent times, I think, that there has been wide recognition that growing inequality is a very real problem in Australia.
Even if you are fortunate enough to be in work in this country, too many working Australians are faced with the risk of their position becoming more unequal in society, and that is largely as a result of the stagnant wage growth that we have seen in this country in recent years. This is something that I have spoken about on a number of occasions, as have my colleagues. What is really remarkable about the Australian economy in recent years is that, while it does continue to grow in an overall sense, the average Australian working person is not getting to share in that growth by way of increased wages. Someone is benefiting from the increased economic growth that we're experiencing in this country and the increased profits that companies are recording, but it's not working people, who are obviously doing so much to contribute to those profits. The increased growth that we're seeing in this country is increasingly going to shareholders and the top end of income earners and not to average working people, let alone those who are unable to find work.
Beyond the issue of stagnant wages, we also see inequality hitting working people in the form of the rising level of insecure work that we find in the economy. I know this is something that the government is sensitive about and that they don't like being told about facts and figures which demonstrate this. They want to have an argument about whether casualisation has increased or not. But, if you look at the various different categories of insecure work that exist these days—whether it be casual work, part-time work undertaken when someone doesn't really want part-time work, labour hire or short-term contracts—statistics that have come out over the course of this year, particularly from the Centre for Future Work, indicate that, for the first time in Australia's recorded history, we now have greater than 50 per cent of the Australian working population working in a form that does not provide them with full-time work with guaranteed leave benefits. Again, if you break that down, it might be that they're casuals, it might be that they're labour hire, it might be that they're short-term contractors or it might be that people are working part time when they want full-time work. But, when you pool all of that together, for the very first time in Australian recorded history, there are more people working in some form of insecure employment in this country than those who are fortunate enough to have full-time, permanent, secure work. That is a crisis that is affecting many working people in Australia, and it is undoubtedly contributing to the fact that wages in this country are just not growing under this government.
Even over the course of the last few days, we've seen this government not content to allow the independent umpire to reach a decision about casualisation of work. There has been a recent decision by the independent umpire in the WorkPac and Skene case, which found that particular workers were not validly described as casual. If you looked at the way that they worked and the terms and conditions of their employment, they shouldn't have been treated as casual and they should have been entitled to other additional benefits, particularly in the form of leave. Rather than accepting that there are Australians who are being employed in a manner which is not casual, as their employer claims, the government have just announced, I think today, that they are going to intervene in the appeal that has been undertaken in that case. They want to join with big business in keeping more people stuck in a casual form of employment—without job security, without leave benefits, without all of the other benefits of permanent employment—instead of actually standing on the side of working people and guaranteeing them some level of security. It is extremely disappointing to see this government take that position.
Pleasingly, the unemployment figures that came out today did show a small decrease in the overall number of unemployed people, from 5.3 per cent to five per cent. But what the government wasn't as keen to talk about was that some of that decrease, if not all of it, is due to the fact that the participation rate, the number of people who are actively looking for work, has also fallen, from 65.7 per cent last month to 65.4 per cent this month. So it's no surprise that the number of people who are unemployed in this country has fallen, when there are a greater number of people who have given up even bothering to look for work because they're so despondent about their chances. That is the sort of thing that the government needs to be fixing.
To this day, we continue to have over a million Australians who are underemployed—who are not able to find the amount of work they are looking for. They might be getting five hours, 10 hours or 20 hours a week and they want to work more, but they are unable to because the work isn't there. The government needs to be careful about crowing about its unemployment statistics when in fact so many people have given up the effort of looking for work, because they can't find it, and when over one million people want more work than they are able to find. These people can't be described as dole bludgers; they are actively looking for work and cannot find the amount of work they are after.
I noticed another report that came out today that is relevant to this topic, and that was a report released by Anglicare. Now, not all unemployed people are looking for entry-level positions or low-skilled positions. Obviously there are people with a high level of skills who go through a period of unemployment from time to time, but, equally, there are a large number of people who are unemployed for a long period of time and are looking for an entry-level job simply to break into the workforce. It was very concerning to see this Anglicare report today, which showed that the latest figures are that, in Australia, there are four jobseekers for every entry-level job that exists. I'm not going to get these figures exactly right, but, from memory, the current figures show that there are about 25,000 vacant entry-level jobs in Australia and there are over 100,000 jobseekers who are looking for entry-level positions and are unable to find them. So, even if we accepted the argument that we sometimes hear from conservative commentators and members of this government, that unemployed people just aren't trying hard enough to find work, the facts show that that is clearly not the case: 25,000 or so entry-level jobs for 100,000 people looking for an entry-level position. People are sincerely trying to find work, and the jobs are just not there, because under this government the economy is not strong enough to produce those jobs.
Undoubtedly, inequality remains a genuine problem in this country, whether we're talking about working people whose wages are not rising or who are facing insecure work, or whether we're talking about people who are unable to find work—and, no doubt, they are the people in our community who are the most disadvantaged and most in need of the support of a government that is on their side. Unfortunately, they don't have a government on their side with this government.
As I said, the federal opposition absolutely recognises that the rate of Newstart is too low. I will just give you a couple of case studies that I found in a recent SBS online article. A woman by the name of Judy, 62 years of age, who has been on Newstart for nearly a year, says that she often has cereal as a meal for dinner, and she basically just hibernates because she has so little money to live a decent life. She is surviving on less than $300 a week and she says:
… it's frightening to think anybody can live like that when you've got to pay the mortgage, your utilities and incidentals …
A student in Canberra, Jarryd, said that he'd only recently started working in a supermarket and, as a result of getting some earnings, has lost some of his Newstart—and we understand that's how the system works. He says that his Newstart 'pays rent for the fortnight and doesn't do much more than that'. He had to eat $5 McDonald's meals for about a week because he couldn't afford anything else.
I don't think that anyone in this overall very wealthy country that we have the good fortune to live in wants to see other Australians live in those conditions. Again, it can't simply be dismissed—as so often occurs—as these people just not trying to look for work, when I'm able to show those figures that have come through from Anglicare, showing that so many more people are looking for entry-level jobs than there are jobs for them to go into. So it's those sorts of case studies that show that we need to increase the rate of Newstart and that the current rate is too low.
Having said that, the opposition does not support this bill, and I have to say we think that putting it forward is nothing more than a stunt from the Greens. I have no reason to disbelieve Senator Siewert's good intentions about the need to increase the rate of Newstart, but the Greens know very well that this bill has absolutely no prospect of getting through the House of Representatives. I'm not aware of them having made any attempt to negotiate with the government to see what is possible and what the government will agree to. So, however many speeches we hear from Greens senators over the course of this debate about the need for this bill to go through, there is zero prospect of it happening. A much better idea would be to work with the opposition and with government senators to see what can actually be done in reality, rather than just plonking a bill in here that has no chance of being accepted.
As I say, the opposition absolutely acknowledges the need for the rate of Newstart to increase and that it is too low, but we think that it is important to do a proper review of the Newstart payment to see not only what is the right rate for it to be increased by but also, most importantly, how that should be paid for. That is, of course, one of the things that you will always see that are different between the Labor Party and the Greens party. As a party that aspires to be in government, we acknowledge that, if you're going to increase expenditure, you've got to pay for it in some way. It's one of the luxuries of being a minor party, as the Greens are, that you never have to really be accountable for your decisions. You can come in here and put forward all sorts of bills that will spend all sorts of amounts of money, and it's never your problem to find out how that should be paid for. Labor is actually serious about it. Labor does want to increase the rate of Newstart, but we also want to see how it can be paid for.
Most importantly, there are many more issues with the current Newstart system than simply the amount of payment that is made. We could increase the rate of payment by the amount that the Greens are putting forward here and still not deal with some of the fundamental problems that exist with the Newstart payment. In the remaining couple of minutes that I have, I might just make a couple of points that we made in the recent future of work inquiry that I chaired and that a number of other senators participated in.
One of the really interesting things that came out of that inquiry, I think, was that, as well as thinking about the future of work in terms of what the influence of technology and automation is going to be on jobs and what jobs will go and what jobs will stay, we also need to be thinking about what kind of social security system we need in an environment where more people are juggling multiple part-time, insecure jobs. There are a range of things that we talked about in that report that we should do to change the laws to reduce the number of people who are facing insecure employment. But, for those people who do face situations where they come in and out of casual or part-time work, with a few hours here and a few hours there, it is very clear from the work that we did in that inquiry that the current Newstart system does not give enough acknowledgement to current circumstances.
The current Newstart system and payment were created in a world long ago where most people worked on a full-time permanent basis. As I've already said in my speech, we're now living in a world where, shockingly, more than 50 per cent of the Australian workforce does not work in full-time permanent work. So, if the world has changed, we also need to look at how our Newstart system works to make sure that it is coping and is designed in a way that acknowledges that people are working in different manners. We need to make sure that it responds to a world where someone might be working 40 hours one week and five hours the next week. We should be trying to eliminate situations where people end up racking up massive overpayments because the system hasn't been flexible enough to respond to the fact that some people are working lots of hours one week and not so many the next week. We need a system which acknowledges that some people gain a lot more work on a casual basis over the Christmas period, whether it be in retail or in other areas.
The time for the debate has expired. Do you want to be in continuation?
Yes, please. I seek leave to be in continuation.
Leave granted; debate interrupted.
by leave—I table documents in relation to my speech in the adjournment on Tuesday evening.
I rise to speak on the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018. Last year the Australian parliament finally moved to catch up with views that the people we were representing had held for well over a decade—that no two people should be denied, purely on the basis of their sexuality, the right to marry the person they love. Today this legislation challenges senators in this place to not repeat that mistake of delaying action and baulking at legislative change that reflects the expectations and hopes of the Australian community. This parliament again has the chance to walk with the Australian people on their march towards equality instead of racing to catch up a decade later as the parliament did with marriage equality. In doing so, we would take the next step in the legislative journey that I'm proud to say began in my home state in 1975 when South Australia became the first state to decriminalise homosexuality. It is sobering to think it was another two decades before Tasmania became the last state to remove this blight from our laws. Thankfully, criminalising the love of two consenting adults is unthinkable in any state or territory.
Over that same period we have seen governments, both state and federal, slowly and piece by piece strip away the laws which kept in place the more covert discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians. In 1984 the Hawke government introduced laws to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Many years later, in 2008, the Rudd Labor government amended over 80 pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against LGBTIQ couples. State and territory parliaments have continued to remove discrimination from their laws in order to ensure the equal treatment of LGBTIQ couples, to ensure equality in parenting laws and to remove criminal convictions resulting from unjust laws which criminalised homosexuality. It has not been a smooth path, and there have been setbacks along the way. As I noted last year during the marriage equality debate, in 2004—almost four decades after the US Supreme Court struck down laws which, on the basis of race, outlawed certain marriages—our Australian parliament was legislating to discriminate against loving couples on the basis of sexuality. It was a sad moment in the history of this parliament.
For me, Labor's support for the Howard government's amendment to the Marriage Act meant I was required to vote for discrimination against myself and the people whom I love. The reason I joined the Labor Party is that it is the party of equality and that it has such a proud history of removing discrimination and of extending equality. I knew then that, whilst the party may have disappointed many in 2004, eventually justice and equality would prevail, and so it did when in 2011 we achieved a change in the Labor Party's platform to support legislating for marriage equality. Just as it seems unthinkable that we would ever again criminalise homosexuality, it is now untenable that we would ever again prevent people, on the basis of their sexuality, from marrying each other.
So too are the Australian people now declaring it untenable that discrimination against students and teachers continues to be legal even if it can be justified on religious grounds. It is time to remove this remaining piece of legislative discrimination. Labor approaches this debate knowing that Australia is a tolerant nation and an accepting nation. Discrimination against LGBTIQ Australians has no place in our national laws. We approach this debate knowing that same tolerance and acceptance includes recognising the right of those of faith to live by their traditions and their beliefs.
Unfortunately, for purely political purposes, this government has decided to deny Australians the right to a mature debate on how best to balance freedom of religion with the right of all Australians to live free from discrimination. The government continues to refuse to share the report of the Religious Freedom Review expert panel with Australians and with its representatives. The report, promised by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull during the parliamentary debate on the bill to legislate marriage equality, was actually delivered to this government in May. It appears to have sat on Mr Turnbull's desk for months. We're not sure on who else's desk it sat. It has now sat on Mr Morrison's desk for months. To sit on this report and deny Australians a mature and informed debate really does show contempt for the people we are supposed to be representing.
This government is seeking to hide this report solely because it is so divided that it fears the impact this report will have on the voters of Wentworth. And for what purpose? Many religious education institutions have made it clear that they do not and will not use the exemptions which are removed by this bill. They have made clear their abhorrence at the idea that they would ever seek to shame or punish a precious child in their care at a most vulnerable point in their lives. Yet when leaks to the media prompted reports that the government wished to extend the right of religious organisations to discriminate against students and teachers, the Prime Minister's numbers man, Mr Alex Hawke, couldn't wait to jump on Sky News and declare his joy at such recommendations. At the suggestion that his government would legislate to enable a 14-year-old child to be kicked out of school just at the point in their life when they would be crying out for support, when asked whether religious schools should be able to discriminate against LGBTIQ students and teachers, Mr Hawke said: 'Absolutely. I don't think it's controversial.' Well, I invite senators to pause and think about that for one moment. Fortunately for LGBTIQ Australians, and for all Australians who believe Australia to be a nation that values fairness and equality, the overwhelming majority of Australians disagree with Mr Hawke.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in this place insist the report was unfair and this was never their intention. To that I say two things. Tell that to Mr Alex Hawke, who delighted in the prospect of laws that would enable a child to be kicked out of school for being gay. If what Mr Morrison and Mr Cormann are saying is true, they really only have themselves to blame, because it is this government that buried the report for five months, it is this government that is not allowing the Australian people to know what it is in it and it is this government that is not allowing the community to have a mature and balanced debate on this important issue.
Labor does respect the Australian people. We will treat this legislation in the mature way it deserves. We will treat this legislation in the mature way the Australian community deserves. Regrettably, they have been denied such an approach by the government. We respect the right of parents to send children to the school of their choice and to have their children educated in accordance with their religious convictions. We respect that many parents choose religious schools because they want their children to be grounded in the identity and mission of a particular faith. We also respect that religious schools, and parents of students, are entitled to require employees to act in their roles in ways that uphold the ethos and values of that faith, and that this requirement may be taken into account when a person is first employed and in the course of their employment.
But we also respect that, in 2018, the overwhelming majority of Australians believe that exemptions from discrimination for gender identity, sexual orientation and relationship status are no longer acceptable. We therefore approach this legislation on the following basis: that discrimination on the basis of someone's attributes—whether that be gender, gender identity or sexuality—is categorically unacceptable, and what freedom of religion means is that teachers in religious schools should carry out their duties in the way that upholds the ethos and values of the faith.
As we did on marriage equality and as we have sought to achieve with this legislation, we call on the government to work with Labor and with all senators in this place to achieve a just and fair outcome, one that unites this parliament and unites the nation. A good start would be to release the Religious Freedom Review: report of the Expert Panel. This government commissioned the report and it should be willing to allow a mature, informed and balanced discussion. Labor firmly believes it is possible to protect religious freedom and to protect people from discrimination and to do this in a way that respects the rights of students, teachers, parents and the long tradition in this country of devoted and dedicated religious educators. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, said earlier this week:
These laws are no longer appropriate, if indeed they ever were appropriate. It's time our laws reflected the values we teach our children.
I rise to speak on the Greens sex discrimination amendment bill, the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018, and I do so very proudly. This is the reason I joined the Greens. We do not accept discriminating against people on any basis. We will not accept and allow discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or breastfeeding. The current act eliminates these discriminations as far as possible in areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods and services, facilities, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. But when it comes to religious education institutions, the law exempts them so they can discriminate against teachers, staff, students and their families. How is this even acceptable in 2018? That's why our bill removes these unfair and highly discriminatory exemptions that allow religious educational institutions to discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identification, marital status or pregnancy for both staff and students. I have to say a heartfelt thankyou to my colleague Senator Rice and her staff for the work they have done to bring this bill to debate in the Senate.
After the leaking of parts of the Ruddock review into religious freedoms, we found out the review will recommend that religious schools' ability to legally discriminate against LGBTIQ students and teachers in federal law will be reaffirmed and entrenched. Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison then promised to ensure protections for students against discrimination, but we have not yet seen hide nor hair of that bill. The cynic in me thinks that, yet again, this is a political ploy to try and hold on to Wentworth. As soon as the election is done and dusted, we won't hear much from them on this issue. Even in this political move, principle played very little part. If it had, we would have heard something from them on removing discrimination against teachers and staff in religious schools as well. It seems also that even the Labor Party can't fully make up their minds on whether religious schools should continue to discriminate against LGBTIQ teachers. They started off saying no. Then they said they want to have conversations. Then they said they want to see the submissions made to the review to understand why some schools want discrimination against LGBTIQ teachers to continue. Now it seems that they have joined us here in the real world.
Discrimination in schools is just plain wrong. It is bigotry, plain and simple. The idea that religious schools can do this, with billions of dollars in public money, is even more utterly offensive. We are a society committed to equality and acceptance. No school should be allowed to discriminate. Any school or organisation that chooses to accept public funding must also accept the secular values that come with it, or not a cent of public money should go to them. These views are horrifically out of step with community values, let alone basic decency. So don't tell us that this is complicated. This is pretty straightforward. It's an issue of justice, it's an issue of fairness, it's an issue of equality and it's an issue of respect. That is why it is so important that we are debating this bill today. The community needs to know that we stand with them, that we will stand up for basic rights of human dignity and respect and that all people are equal, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Let me be absolutely clear about another thing: no religious school, whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or any other religion, should be allowed to discriminate. The laws that allowed them to do this—brought in by the Labor Party, with the support of the Liberals—need to be consigned to the history books. Australians are asking for this. The people are speaking with one voice on this. Nearly 80 per cent of respondents to a Galaxy poll are against exemptions for religious schools in LGBTIQ antidiscrimination law. For too long religious schools have been allowed exemptions from the rules that the rest of society actually follows. The Greens' bill would answer the overwhelming demand for this.
The government has indicated that it will bring a bill to remove the exemptions for students only. Of course, if it ever happens, it will be a huge thing for our LGBTIQ young people and their families, who at the moment receive the very public message that they are not accepted. Many will feel that they have to live their teenage years in silence and hide their identity for fear of being expelled. But what about the teachers? On what possible basis could we agree that it is okay to be fired or to be refused a job simply for who you are? The very existence of the right to discriminate is certainly enough to harm the students' mental health and sense of belonging in a society that is already hostile for young LGBTIQ people.
Laws that allow discrimination against teachers mean they're forced to live double lives and constantly worry about the risk of losing their job if they are outed. Look no further than the story of the Western Australian relief teacher, Craig Campbell, who was fired last year after the Baptist school he was teaching at found out he was gay. State laws made that perfectly legal. Around the world, the picture is pretty horrifying. Earlier this year, a primary school teacher in the US was fired after daring to post wedding pictures with her wife online. Time and time again, the government has capitulated to the interests of private and religious schools, handing them enormous amounts of public funding and entertaining their wish to discriminate. Let's show some leadership for once. Our schools should be places where social inequality and social injustice is actually undone, where all students are accepted and where staff are able to teach as themselves and instil in their students an appreciation for all people.
It is incredibly saddening that in 2018 we're still defending the most basic rights to nondiscrimination instead of putting our focus on how we include desperately needed acceptance and celebration of diversity in the curriculum of all schools in Australia. We must fight this backwards push with all our might and stand with students and teachers to remove all existing exemptions that allow religious schools to discriminate. I commend the bill to the house.
I rise to take part in the debate on the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018 that is before the Senate. I do so being mindful that this is an issue that goes to some very basic questions about who we are as human beings and how we understand, recognise, respect and accord human dignity to one another. I also do so while acknowledging that we are at this point and in this debate in the Senate and, indeed, in Australia as a result of a review into religious freedom instituted by the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. While I may have a cynical view about why that review was instituted—in regard to the political debate at the time in relation to marriage equality and a desire for the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, to placate concerns raised by some in his party room regarding religious freedom—I do acknowledge that the question of religious freedom in a secular, liberal democracy is one that is fundamental to our body politic. We need to consistently balance the rights of people to freedom of religion and freedom of association alongside the rights of people to be treated equally and without discrimination.
I will get to the intent of the legislation, but I'd like to spend a few minutes reflecting on how we got to this point. As I mentioned, this debate has arisen as a result of the religious freedom review instituted by Malcolm Turnbull in November 2017. Mr Turnbull appointed an expert panel, chaired by the Hon. Philip Ruddock, a former minister in the Howard government, that included some eminent Australians: Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission; the Hon. Dr Annabelle Bennett AO SC, President of the Anti-Discrimination Board; Father Frank Brennan SJ AO, CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia; and Dr Nicholas Aroney, professor of constitutional law at the University of Queensland. This panel conducted public consultation over a seven-week period during February and March of 2018. These consultations were held in Canberra, Perth, Sydney, Western Sydney, Hobart, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Darwin, and the panel received more than 15,500 submissions in that period. That would suggest to me that questions about religious freedom are ones that are important to Australians and ones that many Australians choose to engage with. The panel announced they'd completed the report, and delivered it to Mr Turnbull, in his capacity as Prime Minister, on 18 May 2018.
It has been some 153 days—five months—that the government has had this report and, unfortunately, they have not released it for public consideration. Given the considerable public interest and involvement in it, given the time and intellectual capacity contributed to it by the eminent Australians on the panel, it is disappointing to say the least that we have not yet been able to see the report. In fact, we heard this week in the House of Representatives from the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who served as Treasurer in the Turnbull government, that he first saw the report not long after he became Prime Minister. This is a man who was the Treasurer of the government. He is a person who has a professed and publicly stated interest in religion and religious freedom, and he had not even seen the report, according to his own advice to the parliament.
The Turnbull government had sat on this report since May. They clearly hadn't shown it to the cabinet; cabinet has not been deliberating on this report since May. Quite frankly, the government has been hiding it from its own ministers and from public consultation and consideration. I do think this is disrespectful. That the panel itself is not able to comment on the report until it is released continues the disrespect, and, according to the panel's website, that release is a matter for the Prime Minister.
Nonetheless, someone has selectively released portions of this report. Someone has put portions of this report into the public realm, through the media, and, as a result of that, that's where we are today. We now have portions of this report, and those portions that we have for public consumption make clear that the report highlighted to Australians that within our antidiscrimination legislation we still have these exemptions not just for staff and teachers but for students. I would say that many Australians and many legislators would have been aware of the exemptions as they relate to staff. I'm not sure that many Australians would have been aware of the exemptions as they relate to students.
Here we have, though, the government playing politics in the lead-up to the Wentworth by-election. They have their political reasons for keeping this report secret. However, as a result of the report, there are policy discussions that are now happening in good faith in the community and, putting all of this politicking aside, we may yet get a good policy outcome, at least on this portion of the report.
The legislation that has been introduced in the Senate, the Discrimination Free Schools Bill, is, I acknowledge, a good first step. It is a good first step in achieving an end that Labor, the Greens, some of the crossbench and Liberal senators who have participated in this debate have made clear they all want to accomplish—that is, the removal of an exemption in our antidiscrimination law as it applies to students in religiously affiliated schools. As I said, this legislation is a good first step. However, I believe the legislation can be improved in certain ways. It is not just about making clear that discrimination against students and staff because of who they are or who they love is no longer lawful. I would also like to see this legislation assert an affirmative position in law relating to the ability of religious schools to exercise freedom of religion and freedom of association.
The Discrimination Free Schools Bill would amend the Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act. The effect of these amendments would be to remove these exemptions in antidiscrimination laws for both students and staff that have applied to religiously affiliated schools. The intent of these exemptions when they were introduced was to uphold the ability of faith based schools to maintain the ethos and the mission of that faith and that school. In 2018, it is clear that these exemptions from discrimination for both students and staff on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation and relationship status are out of step with community expectations and are no longer the best way to safeguard the mission and identity of religious schools. Even without the release in full of the Ruddock report, the selected portions that have been leaked have prompted a public reaction and a policy response from various political parties.
Labor has made clear that it supports removing the exemptions to antidiscrimination legislation both for students and in the hiring of staff and teachers at religious schools. As I said, the government has made clear that it supports removing such exemptions for students. However, government senators who have spoken in this debate confirm that they do not support the exemption relating to staff and teachers, and that does, at this time, make it very difficult for such legislation to pass the parliament.
Labor supports the intent of the Discrimination Free Schools Bill insofar as it supports the removal of such exemptions that allow schools to discriminate against children and staff on the basis of sexuality, gender identity, marital status or pregnancy. But Labor is currently reviewing the specifics of the particular amendments as they are drafted in the Discrimination Free Schools Bill for unintended consequences and sufficiency, and I do flag that we may yet have more to say in the course of this debate, in any future committee stage or in the face of future government legislation in the Senate. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I believe, and Labor believes, that this legislation can be improved. It can be improved by providing for a positive, affirmative position that recognises the ability of religiously affiliated schools to uphold the value and ethos of those schools and to set rules within the school that require staff to act in ways in their roles that uphold the value and the ethos and to not undermine the mission and the identity of those schools and that faith. I'd like to speak to this in a bit more detail in the time remaining.
I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Wong as well as that of Senator Pratt, both of whom have spoken before me. I agree quite strongly with the descriptions they have given of the need to remove discrimination for LGBTIQ people and to ensure that in Australia we no longer have in law the ability to discriminate against people on the basis of their identity. We are tolerant. We are accepting. We are able to recognise that all of our citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or relationship status, are fellow human beings, and accord them the dignity and rights that entails. However, we also recognise that our community, country, people and nation—some of us with faith; some without—are and always have been multicultural and multireligious. The right of our churches and churchgoers to live by their traditions and beliefs is also part of our national identity. Balancing these two things is fundamentally important in a democracy. We know that many people have strong views in this debate about how we should balance freedom of religion and the right of all Australians to live free of discrimination. In that regard it would be incredibly helpful if the government released the Ruddock review.
As someone who has been educated in the Catholic education system from year 1 all the way through to a master's degree, as the daughter of a Catholic schoolteacher and as someone who worked as a Catholic primary schoolteacher myself, I understand very well the role of religious education and why families choose it for their children, but, as a legislator for nearly ten years in the New South Wales state parliament and as a former Premier of that state, I also understand our responsibility as legislators to get the balance right, upholding religious freedom while ensuring we are not enacting discriminatory practices within our legislation. We on this side of the Senate very much respect the right of parents to send children to the school of their choice. I understand that firmly. It is a choice my husband and I have made for our own children. Like many parents who have chosen religious education, I have done it because I want my children to be grounded in their Catholic faith. I want them educated in the ethos and the social justice traditions of my church.
I know that my children and other children who are in religiously affiliated schools do not just receive that ethos, mission and identity in a religious or a scripture class; they receive it from the moment they step on the school grounds through to the moment that they leave, whether it be in student leadership, extracurricular activities, sporting activities, other parts of the curriculum, the library, the cafeteria, the gymnasium or the interactions they have with the staff and teachers. The mission and identity of a religious school is not just in the classroom; it is part of the culture, behaviours and activities that take place within that institution. When it comes to employment, we know that the parents who send their children to those schools expect the teachers and staff to support that ethos, to live out that mission and identity and to not act in ways that undermine that mission. The reality is that staff who work in those schools understand this too, and that's why there are very few examples where faith based schools making employment decisions have needed to rely on the identity based exemptions in discrimination law. While every employer is entitled to require employees act and perform their duties in accordance with the stated mission and practices of the organisation, in the absence of such exemptions in our antidiscrimination law it is necessary to ensure religious schools are positively entitled to teach and operate in accordance with their faith and mission.
Labor proposes that we have an affirmative position for religious schools that upholds their exercise of religious freedom and freedom of association. Our approach to legislation on this issue would remove exemptions on the basis of sexuality, gender identity or relationship status. But we would also like to see in legislation a recognition that religious schools are entitled to require their employees to act in their roles in ways that uphold the ethos and values of that faith and that that requirement may be taken into account when a person is first employed and in the course of their employment.
As we have done previously, we do call on the government to come to the table and work with us and with the crossbench to find a suitable way forward. It's disappointing to hear the Liberal senators who have participated in this debate so far reject that call when it comes to the employment of staff and teachers. It is also disappointing that the review into religious freedom has not been released by the government. In many ways, we are left without the guidance that that review might provide to inform this debate. But the public reaction to the parts that have been selectively leaked to the media makes it clear that the public is impatient. They expect us to deliver on removing discrimination. While the government, unfortunately, may choose to play a waiting game until they can get past Saturday's by-election in Wentworth, the public does not have the patience for such political trickery. Religious freedom is not something that should be played with as a political game. Unfortunately—cynically, I would have to say—the government has chosen to do so.
This does go to the heart of who we are as human beings and the heart of who we are as a nation. We are people who come into this place bringing all of our experiences, and I believe we're also people with a spiritual dimension. I acknowledge that our first people, our first Australians, have a deeply spiritual connection to our land. While I do not believe everyone needs to have a faith in order to practise that spiritual dimension, many people choose to do so. Our challenge as legislators is to work out how to balance their rights and abilities to exercise that faith, and to raise and to educate their children in that faith, with ensuring that we are removing discriminatory practices in laws and discriminatory practices against our citizens that are no longer in keeping with community expectations.
I'm pleased that this legislation and this move are taking place in the Senate and that we are having this debate. I would like to think it can continue to be considered in these respectful terms. I look forward to a point in time when we are able to say to all Australians that there is no discrimination in law and to all our Australians of faith that we recognise their right to a freedom of religion.
I will be brief, because I expressed my view on this appalling situation earlier in the week. I want to go on record in support of the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018, which is a bill to ban discrimination by independent schools against any pupil on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Back on Monday, my motion to strip discriminatory schools of any government funding or charity tax concessions was, sadly, voted down in this very chamber. I suspect that the government and the opposition feared a Catholic school backlash, even though the Catholic Church has not threatened, so far as I know, to expel any child or sack any teacher solely because of their sexual orientation.
I said back then that the very worst part of this whole debacle was that some kids all over this country had to sit nervously over last weekend, considering the prospect that they would be thrown out of their school for simply being who they are. This was after parts of the Ruddock report were selectively leaked to The Sydney Morning Herald. A week later, I can sadly say, their fears have not come close to being allayed by this government. It is hard enough being a kid these days. There is bullying on the internet, bullying and teasing at school and the pressures of growing up, et cetera. There is all of that, without having politicians in this place debating whether or not they are deserving of an education at an institution of their choosing and/or their parents' choosing.
When I tried to get the Senate to acknowledge that it's not just gay kids, but also kids who are struggling with their gender identity, who face discrimination under the existing law, Senator Leyonhjelm would not even let me amend my motion or put it to a vote. To make it worse, he sarcastically quoted back at me, 'Shame, shame, shame'. Well, in my view, the only people who should be ashamed of themselves are those senators and members who virtually told Australian kids this week: 'We might not think you're normal enough to continue attending your own school. First, we'll have a think about it, and we'll debate it. We'll take weeks to do it, maybe even months. In the meantime, keep doing your best to learn, keep going to class, but maybe you have to hide who you are while you are at it.'
We had almost three months of this same sort of thing during the same-sex marriage debate and the so-called plebiscite. But, sadly, it doesn't seem that the government has learned very much along the way. On Senator Leyonhjelm, he wouldn't even let me put the question of whether kids who are gay or transgender deserve to be educated at the institution where they may have attended for years, where they have made friends and maybe where their siblings attend. He gagged me on even putting that question to the Senate. Personally—a little side note—it is good news to me that Senator Leyonhjelm has decided that he wants to be a big frog in a small puddle and plans to leave in February to contest the New South Wales state election, but that's a different story.
Another glaring aspect of this debate—if you can call it that—is the right of religious schools to discriminate against teachers, as Senator Keneally raised, on the basis of their sexual orientation. I reiterate what I said earlier in the week: I believe that schools should not receive one cent of taxpayers' money if they commit themselves to such archaic, disgusting criteria when choosing the people whose only qualifications should be the knowledge that they will impart to their students. Religious schools receive charity tax status because they provide 'a public benefit'. You wonder what public benefit the society reaps from excluding kids or qualified teachers. As someone succinctly pointed out: they are there to teach maths, not gay maths. I do accept—and also following up on Senator Keneally—that an independent school, a faith-based school, is entitled to expect that its teachers will follow the church's ethos, to use the Labor Party's current buzzword. A teacher proselytising against school standards or church beliefs could be terminated, but that would not be because they were heterosexual or homosexual but because they were not following the dictum or ethos of the organisation.
Finally, going back to a hypothetical that I raised here on Monday and raised again in encouraging talks with the Prime Minister today: if I were a person of faith—and I'm not—and I had three teenage kids, two straight and one possibly gay or unsure of their sexuality, could two of my kids go to the school of our choice and the third one not? How the hell do you explain to a possibly troubled and insecure child that that is the law? That is why I say this bill must pass.
I am glad that we are debating the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018. The path to this debate here in the Senate has been less than ideal. Mr Morrison's government seems determined to continue to treat the LGBTIQ community with tremendous disrespect. They have jumped first one way and then the other on questions of basic human rights for this community. The LGBTIQ community deserves more than merely to be an object in this government's culture wars and to have material concealed from them and, indeed, the broader community, in the pursuit of a by-election outcome in Wentworth.
The marriage survey proved that Australians are significantly more tolerant and accepting than this government and the coalition party room: 61.6 per cent of the community voted yes to allow people to marry the people that they love. I'd observe that that signals more than tolerance, more than acceptance. It signals an embrace of this community and its choices and unqualified support for equality. Still, every day, thanks to this government, Australians had to live through a nationwide survey on their right to marry who they love.
Now those same Australians have to sit through another conversation about whether people like them ought to be kicked out of schools, because the government have dragged their heels on releasing the Ruddock review and refuse to do so even now to enable an informed and reasoned debate. Just like the marriage equality debate, this is an argument being pushed by the conservative fringes of politics despite the overwhelming public opinion which does not support these old-fashioned views. Turning children away from schools because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is inconsistent with our values as a nation in 2018. Polling shows that 82 per cent opposed the discrimination law exemptions that allow schools to expel gay and lesbian students. There is a reason why the public view of these exemptions is so overwhelmingly in opposition. Parents and, indeed, all decent people baulk at the prospect of hurting a child. They baulk at the prospect of exiling them for being just who they are. Schools are supposed to be safe, nurturing places where our kids can grow and thrive, and it is unthinkable that they would be allowed to treat a child in this way.
We need to do more than deal with issues associated with children; we need to support the right of teachers to do the job that they love without being discriminated against on the basis of who they love. Teachers have the right to be safe and supported just like any Australian in the workplace. Again, in the public polling there is an indication that 79 per cent of Australians oppose schools' ability to sack teachers if they marry a person of the same sex. I don't believe that schools are considering using this power. Indeed, I have not heard of any schools that have asserted that they wish to do so. But the existence of that threat must weigh heavily on the minds of decent and dedicated teachers. I actually think Australians were shocked to find out that schools even had this power to begin with. Continuing to uphold this historic and outdated exemption only maintains a gap between what the public believe and our present laws.
I recognise how important, strong and genuinely held religious convictions are to the lives of millions of Australians. These Australians should have the freedom to worship and practice their faith without unreasonable impositions or burdens—and they do. It's one of the great success stories in Australia. People of all faiths practice their religion side by side without conflict and without penalty. But, like all rights and freedoms in our society, freedom of religion is not absolute. It must be balanced when it comes into tension with the rights and freedoms held by others, and this includes in our schools.
I am confident in our ability as a society to find this balance. We can do this. We've done it before. Like many nations, Australians suffered from sectarian tensions in our earlier history and it is to the great credit of those before us that we have largely put those sectarian tensions behind us. We navigated the social adjustments that came from the changing status of women and, as our population has changed, we have accommodated different faiths from all around the world. Our society is capable of balancing the rights and wishes of different groups with compassion, understanding and generosity. The debate about this bill and our progress towards reform is the next chapter in that tradition. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
by leave—I table a nonconforming petition signed by 23,283 people relating to discrimination in schools.
by leave—I rise to make a brief contribution to alert the Senate to a minister misleading the Senate earlier today. I wrote to Minister McKenzie seeking clarification and my office hand-delivered a letter to her just before 5.00 pm today. Today, when reading a prewritten response to a question from Senator O'Sullivan, the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Minister McKenzie, said that the coalition government has committed to spend '$400 million for the Bass Highway in Tasmania' as a part of the 10-year Roads of Strategic Importance package. This is simply incorrect and repeats the misleading messaging used during the recent Braddon by-election by the failed Liberal candidate Mr Brett Whiteley, both in press conferences and on his Facebook. As Minister McKenzie should be aware, the commitment at the by-election, from the coalition government, was for $60 million for upgrades to the Bass Highway. The coalition government also committed $10 million for upgrades to the Murchison Highway during the by-election.
To correct the record, during the by-election the Deputy Prime Minister said, on 29 May 2018:
…there is $400 million under the roads of strategic importance, a Tasmanian roads package that is going to make such a difference to Midland Highway, Bass Highway and all the highways and byways in the Apple Isle.
Nevertheless, Mr Whiteley continued to mislead the people of Braddon for a number of weeks with the false figure of $400 million for the Bass Highway. Of course, Mr Whiteley's deceitfulness was wasted. He lost the by-election and was unable to record a swing to the government. I have noticed his face around Parliament House this week and one wonders in what capacity he is back.
After the by-election, the hardworking member for Braddon, Ms Justine Keay MP, lodged a pile of questions on notice to the coalition government seeking information on their plans for their promises made during the by-election—promises that the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, said were not dependent on the Liberals' success in the by-election. In his response to Ms Keay on the Murchison Highway, Deputy Prime Minister Mr McCormack notes that funding for the upgrades will come from the $400 million Roads of Strategic Importance package. This is the same pool of funds that Minister McKenzie asserted today in question time will be spent solely on the Bass Highway. The people of Braddon are sick and tired of this government's repeated brazen mistruths.
Neglecting the Murchison Highway in the minister's prewritten response today demonstrated a lack of understanding of Tasmania from the Nationals, a party whose new Tasmanian representative relentlessly claims to be putting Tassie back on the map and a party who claims to care about the regions but either can't get the basic facts right or is telling mistruths.
While there is an intersection of the Bass and Murchison highways, the two serve very different communities and should not be confused as one road. The Murchison Highway runs from Somerset on the north-west coast past Hampshire, Tullah and Rosebery, ending near Zeehan, where it joins the Zeehan Highway to either Zeehan to the west or Queenstown to the south. It is a vital link for Tasmania's forestry, mining, tourism and agriculture industries as well as residents and small businesses alike.
In comparison, the Bass Highway runs from Marrawah in the far north-west through Smithton, Wynyard, Burnie, Alveston, Latrobe and Deloraine before terminating in Launceston. The highway has recorded some of the highest freight volumes of any road in Tasmania and connects more than 200,000 Tasmanians.
Minister McKenzie's prewritten response to the question on notice from her Nationals colleague Senator O'Sullivan demonstrates that the falsehood lives on. In the letter to Minister McKenzie, I requested that at her earliest convenience today she clarify to the Senate that the Roads of Strategic Importance package for Tasmania is $400 million over 10 years for upgrades to roads throughout Tasmania. I also requested that, as per the response from Deputy Prime Minister McCormack to the member for Braddon, Ms Keay, she clarify to the Senate that the upgrades to both the Murchison and Bass highways are yet to be finalised by the Australian and Tasmanian governments, that no project construction time lines exist and that no funding has been delivered.
Making an error during a response to a question from a non-government senator or member is one thing, but the error was in a prewritten response to a question from a fellow Nationals senator. It is not just disappointing that the minister failed to attend the chamber; it is a clear abrogation of her duties and a slap in the face to all Tasmanians.
As many people in this chamber know, every year since 2007 Plan International has published a State of the World's Girls report. I think every year I have commented on their reports in this place and it has covered a wide range of issues, including domestic violence, education and access to services.
This year it is in a new format. The format of the Plan report this year is Unsafe in the city: aresearch report on girls' safety across five cities in the world. The cities are Madrid, Delhi, Kampala, Sydney and Lima. They are vastly different cities. This project engaged with young women living in these cities about their personal safety and how they think that their city should be safer for them. The purpose of the report is quite clear. It is to shine a light on the relentless sexual harassment and abuse that is a daily norm for so many young women and girls on our city streets. We made this statement, but more importantly this is a statement that young women have made to us. They believe there is a relentless process in their cities, in their homes, that causes them to be unsafe, that causes them to make decisions that are not those which they want to make, but they feel that they are not safe.
Unsafe in the city is the first in a new series of State of the World's Girls reports from Plan International, and it shines a light for all of us. It presents a worrying rise in intimidation and insecurity, which is stopping girls from realising their true potential in our urban spaces. This is particularly important, because we look at this issue as we're considering SDG5 across the world, looking at safety, the importance of women and achieving gender equality. If young women—women of all ages, but particularly at this time young women—do not feel safe, they will not be able to feel equal. I so often talk about that major SDG theme of making sure that no-one is left behind. When young women are unsafe, they will be left behind and we will have no way of making sure that we have genuine equality.
We heard similar stories in these five cities—as I said, different places. Young women are frightened for their very physical safety, and they are angry and frustrated because their voices have not been heard or taken seriously. Harassment should never be seen as part of a normal life for girls and young women. It is not harmless fun. It is frightening, it's disempowering and it's completely unacceptable, and we can make a change.
The way the program was introduced was through working on a Free To Be online map-based social survey tool which was developed and piloted in Melbourne. The findings in the 2016 pilot in Melbourne highlighted blatant inequalities in that city, which caused many to sit up and take notice. As a result of these studies, Plan International commissioned a further study, extended to the five cities which we have now, using the methodology and using the partners CrowdSpot, a digital company specialising in map based data collection, and XYX Lab, based at Monash University in Melbourne. Digitally mapping the process of letting the young women involved make indications of where they feel safe and what's causing their issues, and being able to record this digitally so that the results can be counted, gives people the chance to be involved and to reinforce the point that all girls have the right to feel safe in their city. The Free To Be methodology provides the evidence to present to city bosses and planners to encourage them to work with girls and young women to bring about genuine change in the cities.
This aspect around sexual harassment fits in with a number of studies which have been conducted in Australia. Only earlier this year, our 2018 sexual harassment survey, which was conducted with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, indicated there was a range of fear and concern about sexual harassment across Australia. In September this year, Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, presented a paper called 'Everyone's business'. This particular paper reinforced what happened in the sexual harassment survey and talked about exactly the same issues that were raised in the Plan survey across the five cities internationally—exactly the same indications of feeling unsafe, exactly the same frustration and exactly the feeling that their voices were not being heard and that people were just not understanding the issues of harassment and, even more importantly, the fact that this is everyone's business and that together, as a community, we can put an end to this scourge, which has clearly affected so many lives. When the Sex Discrimination Commissioner presented the paper to the National Press Club, she said:
The most common reasons people said they didn't report their experiences were:
If that is the reaction that young girls have when they are feeling afraid and isolated—that the reason they won't tell someone about it, the reason they won't go to people in authority, is that they just don't think anything will change—indicates that we have a significant problem in our community. There was also a deep concern that there wasn't an understanding about the impact of harassment. There needed to be a genuine acceptance that there is something seriously wrong and that, together, we could make a difference.
Out of both the Plan International paper and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's paper, there are a number of things we see that, together, we could do. One of them, and this is one of the clear recommendations of the Plan paper, is that we must institute behavioural change. We have to challenge the sense of blame in our culture, and listen to and act upon the stories of women and girls. And sometimes this means challenging the definition of masculinity. This leads to another aspect of the whole discussion. This is an issue that affects women and girls, but it must engage men and boys, and it must engage our whole community. The intent of these surveys is to shine a light on this behaviour, and, if we are going to change the culture, it must be done together. We also need to ensure that the voices of young women, and of the young men who support them—because there must be a desire for change among young men as much as young women—must be involved in the decisions that are made. You identify the issue. You identify the areas where people feel most vulnerable.
One of the ones that come up consistently is public transport. Women feel that on public transport they are not safe. They will be harassed. They will be touched inappropriately. Comments will be made which will be inappropriate. They are fearful about using a public service, something which governments provide to help communities. Public transport is one of the most dangerous areas that have been indicated in five cities across different continents, and also in Sydney. One of the areas that came up was Sydney public transport.
We can make a difference. These surveys have not been done necessarily to cause us to be frustrated or cause us not to take action. The rationale behind them is to make us take action and to indicate to each other that we can make a difference. And we can. Following the Sexual Harassment Survey, there has now been instituted a national inquiry through the Human Rights Commission to look at issues of sexual harassment in the workplace in Australia. The first round of those hearings has already begun, and the Human Rights Commission are calling upon people across Australia to submit their own views, their own concerns and their own experiences to this exercise, and also to take part in the community hearings. We know a large number of people have already done that.
I am really hopeful that the work that Plan International has done, particularly in Australia, in Sydney, will stimulate more young women and girls to get involved in the public hearing process that's now being done by the Human Rights Commission, because if we can continue to gather the evidence, if we can break that element where people don't report because they don't think anything will change and no-one's listening, and get involved, then we can make plans into the future to make our communities safer. If our young women feel as though they will not be harassed in public, that will make a stronger community for all of us. I am hopeful that the work that has been done will have that result.
Senate adjourned at 18:09