Senators, I was asked to consider the issue of wearable items with slogans last week and this week, and I said I would come back to the chamber. On 14 November I said to the chamber, in a ruling on a similar matter, 'It is disorderly for senators to wear garments bearing slogans, regardless of the size of the slogan,' repeating a ruling offered on 17 July 2014 by former President Parry. Such practices are disruptive of orderly debate, as they allow senators to intervene in ways other than by receiving the call from the chair. Given the matter raised last week and yesterday, in order for the application of this to be consistent, it applies to all wearable items. As I stated again, I distinguish from these rules the wearing of relatively non-contentious lapel-sized ribbons and badges without statements or slogans.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 includes a number of minor amendments to the Migration Act, the Customs Act and the passenger movement charge and would have been a fairly non-controversial bill, but, as I understand it, there is going to be a proposal in the committee stage of this bill, by a Greens senator, to link measures from members of the House of Representatives crossbench to this bill. As a consequence, there may well be further amendments moved by the Labor Party, given the change in circumstances. What might well have been a fairly routine—and, I would have thought, rudimentary—measure is now becoming a little bit more complicated. As a consequence, there will need to be time for the clerks to be able to prepare these amendments.
We've only just discovered that this measure is being treated in this way. I had been at other meetings and only walked back into my office very recently. I'm not certain if the government is aware of these changes. That was certainly the intent, as I understand it. It will be confirmed, presumably, when others get up to speak. But that's clearly the information that I've been given. As a consequence, let me just deal with these matters as they are at the moment. It will be necessary to put additional speakers on the list to provide time for the clerks to actually prepare the Labor Party's amendments to this bill, given the changed circumstances. I understand now that it's actually the case that it is being proceeded with. I look forward to clarification on that matter.
This bill seeks to clarify when a noncitizen is in the migration zone, and it ensures a bar on applying for further visas remains in place if the process of removal is interrupted. It allows the department to provide information to visa applicants via their online ImmiAccount. It also seeks to reduce the risk of breaching the Constitution where refunds are mistakenly made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and it establishes an ability to recover merchant fees for services similar to those the department recovers from other statutory portfolio charges and fees and various other duties.
So Labor is supporting the thrust of the bill, although there will now be further amendments—I think I've got that confirmed—not just from the Greens but from the Labor Party. The amendments will go way beyond these minor matters that are being considered in this bill to matters relating to the removal of people from Nauru, as I understand it.
This bill, as I say, should have been dealt with in non-contro, and the government may well rue the opportunity that they have missed in not dealing with it in that way. As I say, if it had been put forward in that manner, it would have been dealt with in a rather speedy fashion. This is, nonetheless, an opportunity for me to record Labor's deep concern at the way in which this portfolio has been handled. There has been, in our judgement, a very high level of incompetence. This Minister for Home Affairs, it should be remembered, is under a cloud, insofar as his eligibility remains in doubt given the constitutional questions that have been raised in other matters. Those matters should, properly, be referred to the High Court. Minister Dutton, in our judgement, has been a very poor minister in his management of immigration issues. His failure to negotiate third-country resettlement of refugees on Nauru and Manus highlights the haphazard management of this department, and it is, I think, amongst the more serious of the many failures of his administration.
This government's tick-and-flick approach to the management of immigration matters can be highlighted in a few instances, including the way in which frontline immigration and border protection staff have been in a pay dispute. That raises really basic questions about the way in which staff are treated within the immigration department. There has been a pay dispute now for four years! You would have thought that, after four years, you could have sorted out the department EB. I find it remarkable that that dispute has been going on for so long.
Of course, the Australian National Audit Office has released scathing reports into the systemic failures within the department—including the $1.1 billion question of payments to contractors between September 2012 and April 2016 which were approved by departmental officers who didn't have the appropriate authorisation. You'll say to me, of course, that that was partly under the Labor government as well. I acknowledge that, but the fact remains that these have been brought to light now, and the government has no apparent recourse on those matters. There have been occasions where there's no departmental record of who was actually authorised to make the payments. That's a serious matter. The National Audit Office has made some quite insightful observations about the failures within the department in that regard.
Of course, there has also been the admission from the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection around cybersecurity questions, which, it would appear, remain unresolved as well—something that the department, you would have thought, would have been able to deal with more effectively than we've seen. There has been a 12-month delay in the delivery of fast-response boats to the Border Force in Cairns to protect Australia from illegal fishing, people-smuggling and other transnational crime. I don't think we've heard anything yet about the collisions on the reef in regard to those boats. There remain outstanding questions there. There are the botched changes to the skilled migration visa program that have sent shockwaves through business, industry and the Australian community—and, of course, we shouldn't forget the time the immigration department locked up Australian citizens in onshore immigration detention. These are extraordinary records.
This is a government that has, unfortunately, chosen to use immigration in a highly divisive way. In fact it sought to use it as a form of race-baiting in the recent Victorian election, a tactic which, thankfully, failed so dismally, particularly in a state which has such a proud record in regard to multiculturalism. We saw that the minister himself sought to use some extraordinary attacks on various ethnic groups, claiming that Victorians were frightened to go out at night, frightened to go out and use restaurants in Melbourne, in a blatant attempt to wind up ethnic stereotyping to a new form of racial profiling, which you would have thought there'd be no place for in a country like Australia. But there's no depth to which this government won't sink, when it tries to wind up xenophobia in a desperate attempt to win support. And I repeat: it's so pleasing to see that the Australian people—particularly as demonstrated in Victoria—have so thoroughly rejected that style of politics. We've seen this minister mishandle his portfolio in such a manner that I think it's now become a symbol of the shambles that is very much emblematic of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government.
You would have thought that migration and immigration more generally would be a real strength for this country, given how important these issues have been for the welfare and extraordinary prosperity that this nation has enjoyed. Over seven million people have come to this country since the 1950s. There is now an overwhelming body of opinion that highlights the fact that our prosperity can very much be traced back to that migration program. The extraordinarily rich diversity of our people has been an important part of our capacity to engage with the world and, I think, an important part of the way in which we can actually distinguish ourselves from so many other parts of the globe in the way in which we're able to get on so well together in this country. But you wouldn't get that impression from the way in which this government seeks to stigmatise, isolate and attempt to divide, as I say, in a most unbecoming manner. This is a government that has failed a fundamental test of a civilised political system in the way in which it's treated our migration program. It's profoundly disappointing to see that.
It's a shame to have to say this, but Mr Dutton also performed pretty poorly when he was health minister. I can recall circumstances when there was a poll conducted by the Australian Doctor magazine which declared him 'the worst health minister in living memory'. So he's got form. He's got form when it comes to the style of politics. I think he regards it as a successful model in some parts of the population. The overwhelming sense, though, is that the Australian people don't buy it. They do want to see a country of migration that acknowledges the breadth of talent, the extraordinary diversity and the amazing contribution that people have made throughout our history.
To me, it's a shame that there's the desperate attempt to play the terrible dog-whistle type of politics. It might play well in some sections of the Liberal Party; I just don't think it plays particularly well in the public at large. I'm disappointed that those attempts continue to be made, but I am absolutely encouraged by the way in which the Australian people have turned their backs on this extraordinarily offensive style of trying to promote division in this country. It's really quite interesting. I noticed that, in the last state election in Victoria, even the Liberal Party leadership in Victoria rejected the crass attempts that were being made to inject those sorts of xenophobic elements into public debate. The Prime Minister, in the last week of the Victorian election campaign, sought to make issues around immigration. It was the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria at the time, Mr Guy, who said, 'No, we don't share that view, because in my state—which is now the fastest-growing state in the Commonwealth; Melbourne will be the largest city in the Commonwealth of Australia and enjoys extraordinarily good multicultural relations—there is a view that, while there are obviously issues that need to be contended in terms of questions about economic growth and there are clearly challenges that need to be met, the answer is not to blame our migration policies.' It was actually acknowledged that governments have responsibilities. Governments have responsibilities to plan. Governments have responsibilities to actually deal with the fundamental questions about resource allocation. Governments have responsibilities to ensure that people, when they come to this country, have the resources necessary to be able to adapt well to the new environment. But, above all, when it comes to basic infrastructure questions, and if there are real strains as a result of significant population growth, the answer is not to blame the migration policies or the migrants; it's to look at the failure of governments, over a long period of time, to develop the necessary infrastructure that you need to sustain the schools, the hospitals and the transport systems, and to ensure that there are jobs and industry development policies. In the past, we've leant heavily on our migrants to develop the economic prosperity of the nation and to take on the jobs that, quite often, many Australians won't take on.
So it's a double-edged sword, isn't it, when it comes to those questions? But, when you think there's an opportunity to win a few of the redneck votes, particularly from shock jocks, then it is a government that does not mind resorting to the politics of xenophobia and fear. Of course, what we saw in Victoria is that the politics of hope is able to succeed over the top of such extraordinary behaviour. What plays well in the focus groups in the Liberal Party—which I think really talk to members of the Liberal Party—doesn't actually reside well with the general attitude of people, especially as I've experienced it in the state of Victoria. That's why you've seen communities in the east of Melbourne, for instance, which are traditionally very conservative—that is, they vote Liberal; they've voted that way for generations—turning to Labor. They reject the politics of fear; they reject the race-bait approach; they reject the xenophobia. They understand that, for a country like us to succeed, we have to be a sophisticated part of the modern world. That's the way it's been in this country throughout our history, I might add. We effectively double our population every 40 years, and governments have to be able to deal with that and think through the long-term implications in order to ensure that all our people are able to enjoy the prosperity that this nation is able to provide. Clearly, that's not the approach of the current government—and it's certainly not the approach of the current minister.
I'm particularly disappointed that the officers of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, who have a really proud history of serving this nation, have been treated in the way they have. The fact that they can't get their industrial agreement sorted out makes me think that they have been treated pretty poorly. I've also noticed the very high turnover of officers. A number of comments made by longstanding officers and people who are no longer in the department—Mr Rizvi, for instance—highlight the very sharp contrast in the approach taken to migration issues in this country and the cultural change that has occurred as a result of the directions of this government. This country has a very fine international reputation in terms of its migration policies, and enormous support has been experienced by the Australian people for those migration policies.
A great deal of media attention concentrates on the question of people who are seeking refugee status. The overwhelming bulk of people who come to this country, 190,000-odd—or the 160,000 that this government now seeks—come here in an orderly manner and are welcomed in this country. They are welcomed and have been welcomed for generations. It reflects the enormous success of the approach that this country has had towards not only a mass migration program but also multiculturalism. That's a process which the Australian Labor Party is very proud of and which we ought to be very proud of as Australians.
I think this is a bill where, unfortunately, we'll see some other issues raised. We will obviously have to deal with them, which will provide an opportunity to make a few points more broadly about the great benefits of our migration program, even if it's set against the context of an appalling record by this government and this minister in trying to trash that reputation both domestically and internationally. This bill should've been dealt with as non-controversial legislation, and perhaps these questions would then have been dealt with in a much speedier manner—but that's a matter for the government. (Time expired)
I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. This bill makes a range of amendments, including to the Migration Act 1958, to provide that when an unlawful noncitizen is in the process of being removed to another country under section 198 and the removal is aborted then the person will be taken to have been continuously in the migration zone for the purposes of the Migration Act. What this means, in effect, is that when an unlawful noncitizen—I'm using the government's language here—is in the process of being removed to another country and that removal is aborted or that removal is completed but the person is not permitted entry into the receiving country and, as a direct result, the person is returned to Australia, then that person has a lawful basis to return to Australia without a visa. It also provides that, when such a person does return to Australia without a visa, the person be taken to have been continuously in the migration zone for the purposes of certain sections of the act which bar the person from making a valid application for certain visas.
Currently, the relevant visa bar only applies to a person deemed a noncitizen, not an unlawful noncitizen, because, as we all know—government included—there is actually no such thing. So this bar applies to a person deemed a noncitizen by the act. The act bars that person from applying for particular visas after they've been removed or deported from Australia under section 198 to another country but have been refused entry by that country and so are returned to Australia.
This amendment seeks to extend that visa bar to people the government attempts to remove from Australia but for whom, for whatever reason, that removal was not completed or where the person did not enter the destination country. So this is basically extending the circumstances in which a statutory bar against applying for further visas can be applied to already vulnerable people seeking asylum, to people the government wants to send back to their country, or departure. As we know from the bill's digest—112 of 2017-18—this could apply to people who do not enter the other country due to being refused entry by that country. The risk here is that we're going to create a situation where there are, effectively, stateless people trapped in limbo by two countries saying, 'Not my problem'.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights rightfully raised concerns about the expansion of circumstances in which this statutory bar applies and, in particular, how this bill would impact right-to-liberty and non-refoulement obligations, and how it might engage and limit the obligation to consider the best interests of the child. The human rights that this amendment may engage are the right to liberty, the right to not be refouled and, potentially, the rights of the child. What we need to understand from government here is how it responds to those questions around the human rights that are engaged by this legislation, particularly those rights that I just outlined. And we need to specifically understand in that circumstance why it's necessary to apply a visa bar to noncitizens which the government has attempted to remove from Australia under section 198 of the Migration Act. What is the rational purpose or what is the purpose of this legislation? Is it a legitimate purpose under international human rights law, and are there less rights-restrictive approaches than the application of the visa bar?
We are also interested in hearing from government whether there are adequate and effective safeguards in place to ensure that a person is not subject to arbitrary detention, including the availability of periodic review of whether detention is reasonable, necessary and proportionate in any individual case, and also the circumstances in which a person may apply for a particular class of visas or apply that a visa bar may be lifted. So this is a piece of legislation that potentially has incredibly serious human rights ramifications, and it's important that the Senate completely understands how the government responds to those significant potential breaches of human rights.
With regard to the requirements under international law around the rights of a child, the government also needs to be clear about what relative weight will be given to the obligation to consider the best interests of any child in departmental policies and procedures in the context of the measures proposed in this legislation; what the threshold for intervention is on the basis that the measure would not be in the child's best interests; whether there are proper procedural safeguards in place to ensure that the obligation to consider the best interests of the child is given due consideration; whether the measure is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective for the purposes of human rights law; how the measure is effective to achieve the objective—that is, its rational connection to the objective; and whether the limitation is reasonable and proportionate to achieve the stated objective.
Those last three questions I raised, which were whether or not the measure is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective, how the measure is effective to achieve that objective—that is, is it rationally connected to the objective—and whether the limitations contained in this legislation are a reasonable and proportionate measure to achieve the stated objective—are actually fundamentals of international human rights law. They're absolute 1.01 questions, which any government ought to be able to answer comprehensively and clearly so that the Senate can understand whether or not this legislation is in breach of any or some of Australia's international human rights obligations. I mentioned the potential for refoulement. Provisions against refoulement are contained, obviously, within the protocol to the refugee convention to which Australia is a signatory.
We have seen, time after time, this government walk away from its international human rights obligations and we've got concerns that that is happening in this situation. We've seen that, for example, on Manus Island and Nauru. The government still claims that these are offshore processing centres when in fact there are many people that have clocked up over 5½ years now in offshore detention and there is little or no processing happening of people who've been trapped for well over five years on Manus Island and Nauru. We have a system on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and on Nauru which is deliberately designed to dehumanise people, which is deliberately designed to harm innocent people, including innocent children, and which is deliberately designed—this is explicitly admitted by the government—to deter other desperate people from attempting to seek asylum in Australia after arriving by boat.
The overwhelming majority of the people on Manus Island and Nauru have been there for over five years. I do ask the Senate to pause and reflect on that for a minute. Five years—that's a big chunk out of a person's life. It's a big chunk of time. It's a big part of their life to be detained in a punitive system which is designed deliberately to harm people. I say that advisedly, because there is abundant psychological and medical literature which shows that indefinite detention is directly correlated, in many cases, to significant mental health conditions. We have a mental health crisis, both on Nauru and on Manus Island. We have a situation where there are children on Nauru who are suffering from resignation syndrome. What that basically means is that they have withdrawn from life. There are many children there who are not eating or drinking and are effectively being kept alive by emergency medical supports.
I know there's been a long debate—in this parliament, in this chamber, in the community—about offshore detention, but I want to make one thing particularly clear. If the answer is deliberately harming innocent children, then you're asking the wrong question, because the answer to any question is never deliberately harming innocent children. The answer to any question is never deliberately harming innocent men and women. I can personally attest to the harm that's being caused, because, unlike the overwhelming majority—and, to the best of my knowledge, every other senator—I've been to Manus Island. I've been there many times. I've seen firsthand the human cost of Australia's offshore detention policy. I've seen it, and it's awful. It's disgusting. It's something that, ultimately, we will see a royal commission into in this country, and we will see in the future one of our prime ministers get up and make the requisite apologies. It's important that those things happen—a royal commission and an apology from the Prime Minister of the day—because we all ought to be focused, firstly, on getting innocent men, women and children out of offshore detention and here to Australia and, secondly, ensuring that this dark and bloody chapter in our national story is never, ever repeated. That is absolutely crucial.
Decades ago Australia was an international human rights leader. Other countries used to look up at us for our human rights stances. Now we're an international shame. There are far right-wing political parties in Europe that are actually using the Australian government's messaging when they talk about immigration and people seeking asylum. It is an international shame. Do you know what? I've got a firm view that the Australian people are better than what the government's policy is on offshore detention. We respect values like compassion, human decency and a fair go for everyone. I'm here to tell you that the people locked up on Manus Island and Nauru have not been given a fair go. They have not. There are people on Manus Island who ask me, when I'm there: why is one person they were sitting next to, on the very same boat, in community detention in Australia and yet another person they were sitting next to, on the very same boat, in offshore detention on Manus Island? And I know there are people on Nauru who are asking the same question. I know there are families that have been ripped apart by this cruel, inhumane policy of the Liberal-National Party. I know somebody on Nauru who has a baby daughter who is well over 12 months old now, and he's never seen his daughter. He's never held his daughter, because the daughter and the mother are here in Australia, and the husband and father has spent over five years of his life on Nauru. These are terrible, distressing stories, but they have to be told. And I'll keep telling the stories until we get a change in government policy and Labor Party policy on this issue.
Members will be aware that I've also tried to visit Nauru but my application for a visa was denied by the Nauruan government, who put in an email to me that, because the visa did not have the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Australia, they were unable to issue me with a visa. Make no mistake: even though the government's political line on offshore detention is that it's all a matter of PNG and Nauru, every single string is being pulled by the Department of Home Affairs here in Australia—every single string, every single time.
We don't want to see this stuff happening again, and we've got very real concerns about this legislation. The Assistant Minister for Home Affairs at the time, Mr Hawke, provided the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights with a response saying that, in planning the removal of any child, the best interests of the child must be taken into consideration. But he was very clear that it would be a consideration, not the only consideration. He went on to say that visa bars treat all noncitizens—including children—'as if they had never departed Australia,' therefore restoring them to their previous immigration status. What of that person's status? Is that not our problem anymore in this country? If a person is a child, is that not our problem anymore? I don't believe that's what the Australian people are. It's just such a shame that this government think that they are reflecting the values of the Australian people, when clearly they are not.
Regarding this bill's compatibility with the right to nonrefoulement and the right to liberty, the Joint Committee on Human Rights made it very clear that the committee had concerns about this issue. It made it clear that, in the previous parliament, the committee considered:
… that the statutory bar on visa claims in the event of unsuccessful removal from Australia failed to provide for effective and impartial review of non-refoulement decisions, and accordingly the measure was incompatible with Australia's nonrefoulement obligations …
We have very serious concerns that this legislation falls into the same category.
I rise to speak on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. I will start with a few points addressing the contributions that have been made so far. I think that the foreshadowed amendments that Senator Carr spoke about earlier—I believe Senator McKim touched on them as well—at best reflect tangentially on what is at issue before us today in this bill. Senator Carr stated that this could have been dealt with in non-controversial legislation later in the week. If that is the case, I say to those opposite: then treat this bill as it should be treated—look at it on its merits. Don't get dragged by the ears by the Greens because you're worried about inner-city electorates. Treat the bill on its merits, do what is right for Australia and continue to protect Australian citizens in the way this government has been doing now for five years.
This government has been taking action to make sure that Australians are kept safe. This is not a one-off process. This is not a change to the law that happens and then we can all go and congratulate ourselves, slap ourselves on the back and sit down and have a beer. This is something that you need to keep going back to again and again because methods change, methodologies change and the individuals involved change. It is a constantly changing environment. The technology of terror changes, and we need to be constantly on guard to make sure that our legal arrangements are the most effective they can be. That is why, on 28 November this year, the government introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018.
This bill does a couple of things. Importantly, it amends the Citizenship Act so that dual citizens convicted of a terrorism offence in Australia are eligible to lose Australian citizenship, irrespective of the sentence. This removes the current requirement that a terrorist offender must be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment. The bill also adjusts the threshold for determining dual citizenship, a change aimed at improving the scope of determining a person's foreign citizenship status by the minister. Similar to the UK scheme, the government will also develop a temporary exclusion order scheme, so Australians involved in terrorism overseas would be legally unable to return to Australia for up to two years. These temporary exclusion orders would enable authorities to delay and then monitor and control the return and re-entry into our community of Australian foreign fighters.
Why is this important? It's important because the Australian national terrorism threat level is at 'probable'. This isn't something that is used to scare people; this is just a statement of reality. Since 2001, 56 people have been convicted—not charged; convicted—of terrorism related offences. Thirty-seven per cent of these people are currently serving custodial sentences. Thirty-nine people are currently before the courts on terrorism related offences. Since 12 September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised, 93 people have been charged as a result of 41 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. There have been seven attacks and 15 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attacks. These are real statistics. These are the facts of what is happening in the Australian community. This is a set of circumstances which is extraordinarily regrettable. We wish it wasn't the case, but it is the reality that we are facing.
It is important for government to continue to examine the laws we have, to make sure those laws are fit for purpose, and to ensure we are doing everything to monitor, restrict, reduce the possibility of and disrupt potential terrorism activities before they occur. We've seen some episodes, quite publicly, in the last few months of what can happen. But I'd also point out that, for example, in the north of Western Australia, we have vast economic assets that would be relatively easy to disrupt with a terrorism incident. We need to be able to deter, disrupt, monitor and continue to effectively police potential terrorism activity in this country.
To continue, around 230 people in Australia are being investigated for providing support for individuals and groups in the Syria-Iraq conflict, including through funding and facilitation or seeking to travel to join these groups. Obviously the overwhelming majority of these people are young men and women. Some 230 Australians have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight or support the groups involved with the conflict. Around 100 Australians are currently in Syria and Iraq and have fought for or otherwise supported Islamic extremist groups. Around half of the Australian travellers are still active in the conflict zone. The other side to this is that at least 90, and possibly as many as 94, Australians have been killed as a result of their involvement in the conflict. Around 40 people have returned to Australia after travelling to Syria and Iraq, having, unfortunately, joined groups involved in those conflicts. These Australians were part of some 40,000 foreign fighters, including 7½ thousand from Western countries, who have travelled to the region and participated in the conflict since it began. Obviously that is a large pool of individuals who do pose a certain level of risk to society.
Two hundred and forty Australians have had their passports cancelled or refused in relation to the Syria-Iraq conflict. The Australian Federal Police has obtained 26 arrest warrants relating to persons of interest to counterterrorism operations. Twelve people have been convicted of terrorism financing and a further five are currently before the courts on terrorism-financing charges. Again, this is the reality of the world we currently live in, and we have to, as a government, respond to that. I do very much encourage those opposite to consider this bill on its own merits. Don't allow yourselves to be distracted by amendments from the Greens; focus on this bill and what it is trying to achieve and support it on that basis. I won't say, 'Don't support it,' because I think that would be very unwise, but support it on that basis.
Just to go through a little more detail on the bill itself, schedule 1 contains amendments relating to removal. This amends the Migration Act to strengthen and clarify the legal framework to ensure that it will be interpreted consistently with the original policy intention. The amendments provide that, when an unlawful noncitizen's removal from Australia is aborted for any reason—for example, refusal of entry by a transit country—and the person needs to be returned to Australia, that person can re-enter Australia lawfully without a visa. The amendments will also make it clear that such a person will be taken to never have left the migration zone and will continue to be subject to visa application bars—that is, they cannot apply for certain visas in Australia.
Schedule 2 makes some changes to the handling of documents. These changes broaden the channels by which the department can provide documents to people. The law will now allow the department to communicate directly via an online account. Obviously this is a relatively straightforward technical change that is keeping the method of communication up to date. Though the change adds a new delivery method to the list of delivery methods available, it does not limit or remove any of the existing methods. This is a key component in permitting the department to move most of their communications onto the same online system as currently used by clients when applying for visas and allows them to provide information to the department online, and I think we all know the potential that has for making things more straightforward. These amendments are in keeping with the government's overall Digital Transformation Agenda. The legislation, as currently enacted, does not cover the use of the department's online account system as a method of providing documents. This amendment adds a new method of giving a document to a person that will capture that system and should be sufficiently inclusive to encompass any future systems the department may implement.
Schedule 3 covers recoverable payments. This inserts a new power into the Customs Act to enable the department to refund duty or drawback of duty in circumstances where a person has been paid a refund or drawback that they were not entitled to. Obviously, again, this is a relatively straightforward technical amendment that allows the refunds and drawbacks to be recovered in certain circumstances.
Schedule 4 covers changes to the passenger movement charge. The passenger movement charge is the charge that is imposed on persons seeking to depart from Australia for either another country or an external territory. The objective of the charge is to offset the cost of the provisions of customs, immigration and quarantine services, and short-term visitor visa processing. The charge is a flat rate of $55. It's included in the price of a ticket charge by certain airline carriers or cruise liners and is collected by those airline carriers or cruise liners at the time the person purchases a ticket. The charge is normally collected in the ticketing price by the carriers and then deposited into the department's account. Where the person purchases a ticket from an airline carrier or a cruise liner that has not entered into a special arrangement with the minister, the charge is not part of the ticket price. In these circumstances, an officer in the Australian Border Force collects the charge from the relevant person at the place of departure. If the person elects to pay with a credit card, the merchant fee is charged to the department by the banking institution. Where the person pays with a debit card, a merchant fee is not charged. While the department encourages clients to use electronic or online systems and facilities for the payment of charges, fees duties, taxes et cetera, there is a real need for the department to manage the cost of merchant fees charged on these fees.
The department currently recovers merchant fees associated with credit card payment under citizenship, customs and migration legislation. The head of power to prescribe regulation for the recovery of fees associated with the charge would be consistent with the recovery of merchant fees for other portfolio payments. In schedule 5 there are some minor amendments, some technical changes to the wording of some provisions in the Customs Act. Again, these are relatively straightforward, minor proposals.
I just want to go into a little more detail on the temporary exclusion orders and the provisions of the bill itself. On 22 November, the Prime Minister announced that a temporary exclusion order scheme, similar to the UK scheme, would be introduced. The TEO scheme will enable Australian authorities to delay and then monitor and control the return and re-entry into our community of Australians who have been in conflict zones like Iraq and Syria. I think some of the statistics I read out earlier reveal why that is so important to ensuring that our society is kept safe.
Under the TEO scheme, the Minister for Home Affairs will be able to impose a temporary exclusion order for up to two years on an Australian citizen of counterterrorism interest located offshore. The TEO will make it a criminal offence to return to Australia unless a permit is granted that would manage their return. Once the person is back in Australia, the permit may also impose controls on the individual, such as reporting to police, curfews and restrictions on technology use. It is very important to get the balance of this right. It needs to be workable and it needs to be operationally effective, but it is also a very important part of ensuring that, when people do come back to Australia from exclusion zones, they do so on terms where the Australian government can manage the process effectively. In general, this is a bill that is designed to make sure we deter would-be terrorists and to support our police and security agency in the face of those evolving terrorism threats.
Conviction for a terrorist offence is a very strong statement that someone does not share the values that have made this such a good place to live and such an attractive place for so many migrants. Senator Carr spoke about the importance of migration to Australia, and I absolutely agree with him. Migrants, for many, many years—and my family came from the UK many, many years ago now—over the course of Australia's history have strengthened our nation, have brought us economic prosperity and have played a vital role in what a wonderful country we have, and those on this side certainly agree with those sentiments. However, conviction for terrorism is a statement of repudiation of many or most of the values that we all hold dear.
Where a convicted terrorist would not become stateless, it is appropriate to reassess whether they should or should not be able to remain an Australian citizen. The bill protects Australians and Australians' interests from further harmful acts and maintains the integrity of the Australian citizenship frameworks. It does remove the requirement for a person to be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment to be eligible to lose their citizenship; all that is required is a conviction for a terrorist offence—although it should always be noted that a conviction for a terrorist offence is a high bar. It has occurred—and, as I've described, there have been a number of convictions for terrorist offences over the last decade—but to be convicted of a terrorist offence is a very high bar. So this will not, in any sense, be an easy step, but it recognises the fact that, if you are convicted of a terrorism offence, there must be consequences beyond the prison sentence.
Secondly, it adjusts the threshold for determining dual citizenship. The legislation currently requires that a person is a national or citizen of another country, other than Australia. The bill provides that the minister must be satisfied that the person will not become stateless if their Australian citizenship ceases. This is an appropriate and proportional response in light of evolving threats. As I opened today, I think it is very important that the parliament continues to evolve our legal framework dealing with terrorism offences to make sure that our legal system is capable of deterring, but also identifying and prosecuting, those who are seeking to do our nation harm. These laws are proportionate; they are reasonable. I certainly urge those opposite to treat them on their own merits and not be dragged somewhere they do not want to go by the Greens. It's very important that this bill continues the strong record of bipartisanship on this issue. I commend the bill to the chamber.
I rise to also speak on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. First of all, I'd like to make some remarks about the content of the bill itself and the provisions within it, but I will take the opportunity to make some more general remarks about the administration of the Immigration and Home Affairs portfolio by this government and by Minister Dutton in particular.
Dealing with the bill itself, it makes a number of amendments to several existing pieces of legislation: firstly, the Migration Act 1958; secondly, the Customs Act 1901; and, thirdly, the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. Going to some of the things the bill does: firstly, the bill clarifies when a noncitizen is in the migration zone and ensures a bar on the application for further visas remains in place if the process of being removed is interrupted. Secondly, the bill allows the department to provide information to visa applicants via their online ImmiAccount. Many people have found the use of those sorts of online mechanisms to assist with visa processing very useful, so that is an amendment that we support. Thirdly, the bill reduces the risk of breaching the Constitution—which is always a good thing and something that I know Minister Dutton is particularly keen to ensure in his personal circumstances—where refunds are mistakenly made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. And, fourthly, the bill establishes an ability to recover merchant fees for services. As has been made clear already by Senator Carr, Labor will be supporting the passage of this legislation because it does clarify a number of relatively minor issues across the portfolio that was previously known as Immigration and Border Protection. But, as I say, the bill does nothing to assist with the increasing level of maladministration that we see in this portfolio, by Minister Dutton in particular.
Dealing in a little bit more detail with the amendments that are proposed, I begin with the provisions regarding the removal of noncitizens. Schedule 1 of the bill outlines amendments relating to the removal of a noncitizen from the migration zone and ensures that a bar on applying for further visas remains in place if the process of being removed is interrupted. Section 198 of the Migration Act, as it currently stands, allows for the removal from Australia of unlawful noncitizens. Those unlawful noncitizens can include those who have breached the conditions of their visa or have overstayed their visa. I think all Australians would accept that the ability of the department to remove unlawful noncitizens is an important power that any Australian government should have. At times, because of circumstances, the removal of an unlawful noncitizen may be interrupted or aborted altogether, or it might be that a removal is completed but the person is not permitted entry into a receiving country. It does happen from time to time that Australian authorities are able to effect a removal of an unlawful noncitizen, only to find, when a person is deported, that they are refused entry at the country to which they are taken. In fact, there have been some instances where aircraft have been forced, mid-flight, to return to Australia because of the inability or the unwillingness of another country to accept the arrival of an unlawful noncitizen from Australia. There have even been instances where the government has decided to cancel a removal in response to an interim measures request from the United Nations. So it is important that our legislation keeps pace with all of these sorts of eventualities, and that's what's intended to occur here.
If a situation such as those occurs, and a person is returned to Australia as a direct result, then these amendments that we're debating today will allow for that person to have a lawful basis to return to Australia without a visa, and they will ensure that, when such a person does return to Australia without a visa, there is a bar on the person from making a valid application for certain visas. Obviously, if we're dealing with a situation where someone is deported and, in the worst-case scenario, an aircraft is forced to be turned around to take them back to Australia, there needs to be some legal mechanism for that person to regain entry to Australia, at least for a period of time. But these amendments will make sure that the person doesn't have the ability to reactivate any visa application to replace an earlier decision.
In terms of the amendments regarding information being provided via an online ImmiAccount, the Department of Home Affairs can already communicate with individuals applying for visas in a number of ways. They include giving documents by hand, by post, by email, by fax or by other electronic means. But, even as I say those words, you will recognise that they are means of communication that are rapidly becoming obsolete as more and more people move to online mechanisms for dealing with government. The amendments under schedule 2 of this bill amend sections 494B and 494C of the Migration Act to allow the department to provide visa applicants with information and documents via their online ImmiAccount. The department describes the ImmiAccount as the 'front door' to its online services. We on the Labor side hope that these amendments will improve the department's ability to process visa applications in a timely manner. That is something that has become an increasing problem under the current minister, and I'll have a bit more to say about that later.
The third set of amendments concern recoverable payments. In this bill, schedule 3 reduces the risk of breaching the Constitution where refunds are mistakenly made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. For those watching at home who have their copies of the Constitution beside them, section 83 of the Constitution provides that no amount may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund except under an appropriation made by law. The department currently operates mainly on a client self-assessment basis for the collection, refund and drawback of duty in the Integrated Cargo System. Due to this system, there is always a chance that refunds and drawbacks which aren't owed are still made. That would put those refunds and drawbacks in breach of section 83 of the Constitution. I know that Minister Dutton upholds the Constitution extremely thoroughly, so it's good to see him and his department taking action to make sure that the Constitution isn't being breached on this occasion. This amendment will reduce the risk of breaching the Constitution and it also implements a requirement for the secretary of the home affairs department to report in the annual report any payments that Public Service employees are aware of that were made for a particular financial year.
The fourth set of amendments contained here are in schedule 4, and they apply to the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. What they say is that, if a person is seeking to depart Australia, they are liable to pay a charge known as the passenger movement charge. That's the current situation. Currently, the Department of Home Affairs incurs a merchant fee if the passenger pays the movement charge with a credit card. This cost is incurred by the department and, in turn, the Australian taxpayer. I think most of us would concede that it is really the obligation of someone who is paying their movement charge to incur all charges associated with it. These amendments before the Senate now allow for a new paragraph 2 to be added to section 15 of the act that will allow for regulations to recover this cost which is otherwise incurred by the department. This move is consistent with the fee-for-service that the department recovers for other current statutory portfolio charges, fees and duties that are paid by credit card or PayPal. So it's bringing it in line with current practice being followed by the department in other ways.
Finally, there are a number of additional minor amendments outlined in schedule 5 of the bill which apply to the Customs Act 1901. These amendments include some wording clarification, such as adding the words 'to an external place' to two paragraphs in section 58A within the act. The purpose of section 58A of the Customs Act is to control the movement of persons and goods between sea installations installed in the adjacent area and the coastal area of Australia or a resources installation attached to the Australian seabed at an external place. The words 'to an external place' were inadvertently omitted by the Customs Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999, so we welcome the current coalition government fixing the drafting errors of previous coalition governments. I'd encourage them to take the opportunity to do whatever else is necessary as well.
That's what this bill deals with in specific terms. I want to take the opportunity, in the remaining time that I have, to talk more generally about Minister Dutton's administration of his department—or, more accurately, his maladministration of his department. I know Minister Dutton has tried to build up this image of himself as a hard man—the hard man of this government, the man who is going to keep our borders safe and keep the bad people out—and he would like every Australian to think of him with that degree of respect.
And he has!
I'll take the interjection from Senator Reynolds, who I know did not support Minister Dutton in the recent leadership change, so she must agree with me that Minister Dutton's attempts to fashion himself in that way have dismally failed and that he has failed in his duties.
Senator Hume interjecting—
I see Senator Hume also joining in—someone else who had the good sense to oppose Minister Dutton in the leadership change. I welcome your recognition and shared view that Minister Dutton has not handled his portfolio responsibilities correctly and that he would've made an absolutely disastrous prime minister for Australia. Good on you for making that decision and choosing the second-worst option: making Minister Morrison the Prime Minister of Australia.
We all remember that Minister Dutton has a long record of maladministration in his portfolios, having been voted the worst health minister in living memory in a poll conducted by Australian Doctor, and he's rapidly on the way to being regarded as the worst immigration minister Australia has ever seen.
That was in GetUp!, was it?
Again, I'll take Senator Reynolds's interjection in saying that that poll was conducted by GetUp!. It's very disappointing that you regard Australian Doctor, which I presume is a magazine published by and for doctors in Australia, with that degree of contempt, because I know that you do hold GetUp! in such contempt. As I say, Minister Dutton has, for a long period of time, prided himself on being the hard man of the government, the man who could be relied upon to do what was necessary in Australia regarding border protection and immigration. But I have a different view, and that is that he has led the charge on probably the most divisive approach to immigration that this country has ever seen. Of course, he has race-baited his way across Australia and has made and republished various lies about asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru. I welcome the fact that his own colleagues baulked at the opportunity to make him Prime Minister, and increasingly we're seeing Australians do the same. I'll leave my remarks at that because I know that there are other people who want to make a contribution, but we will be supporting this bill.
I rise also to make a contribution on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. This bill amends the Migration Act in the following ways. Firstly, the bill clarifies that, if a process to remove a person from Australia under section 198 is unsuccessful, the person does not require a visa to return. The bill provides that, where a person leaves the migration zone but returns as the result of an unsuccessful removal under section 198, they remain subject to a statutory bar against applying for further visas. The bill also enables the department to deliver documents to a person through their online ImmiAccount and to charge people for that so-called privilege.
The Greens have serious concerns regarding the amendments in relation to the expanded application of the visa bar under the Migration Act, and have requested information from the minister in relation to this. These concerns are based largely on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the bill dated 8 May 2018. In relation to removal from Australia and the requirement for a visa when travelling to Australia, section 42 of the Migration Act provides that a noncitizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect. A noncitizen who is in the migration zone without a valid visa would be deemed an unlawful noncitizen. The act requires the removal from the migration zone of any noncitizen who does not hold a visa that is in effect and who is unable to resolve their visa status. The bill requires that that removal must occur as soon as is reasonably practicable. I'll come back in a minute to the phrase 'as soon as is reasonably practicable', which would be rather laughable if the circumstances weren't so tragic.
Firstly, proposed section 42(2A)(d) provides that a visa is not required where an attempt to remove a noncitizen under section 198 is made but not completed, the noncitizen travels to Australia as a direct result of this, and the person would be an unlawful noncitizen if they were in the migration zone. Secondly, section 42(2A) applies where removal under section 198 is completed but the noncitizen does not enter the other country—for example, due to being refused entry by that country—and would be an unlawful noncitizen if they were in the migration zone. The Greens have concerns because these amendments would affect the department's processes in bringing a person back to Australia where removal from Australia is unsuccessful, but they do not change or regularise the person's status. Currently, this visa bar applies only to a person deemed a noncitizen—not 'an unlawful noncitizen', because, as we know, government included, there is no such thing. So the visa bar bars a person deemed a noncitizen by the act from applying for particular visas after they were removed or deported from Australia to another country but were refused entry to that other country, and so were returned to Australia.
The Greens have real concerns in relation to amendments relating to the bar on further visa applications. We have very strong concerns about this. Under section 48 of the Migration Act, a person is barred from applying for most visas if they are in the migration zone, they do not hold a substantive visa—that is, they are on a bridging visa—and, since last entering Australia, they have had either a visa application refused or a visa cancelled. The bill amends sections 48 and 48A in line with its amendments to section 42, with the effect being that, when the person returns to Australia, they will be taken to have been continuously in the migration zone. This means that, if prior to the person's removal they would have been barred from making a visa application under either section, this will continue to be the case when they return to Australia. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised concerns about this measure, which it noted will expand the circumstances in which the statutory visa bar applies. The committee has suggested that the proposed amendments are not compatible with the right to liberty and the right to an effective remedy, as well as the obligation to consider the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, it's another cruel approach from this government.
The committee also suggested that there is a risk that a person barred from applying for a new protection visa, for example, could be subject to immigration detention for an extended period given that an attempt to deport the person has already failed or could be deported even if owed protection obligations. As if in this country we haven't already locked up enough people for indefinite detention, we are building disaster upon disaster with these amendments. This amendment bill seeks to extend that visa bar to people the government has attempted to remove from Australia but, for whatever reason, that removal was not completed or the person did not enter the designation country. This is extending the circumstances in which this draconian, inhumane statutory bar against applying for further visas can be applied to already vulnerable people seeking asylum who the government wants to send back to their country of origin or departure and then that government says, 'No, they are not welcome here,' and they do not—as per the Bill's Digest examples—enter the other country due to being refused entry by that country. So these are stateless people trapped in a limbo by two countries saying, 'It's not my problem.' Imagine being that person and being pinged between countries that are basically saying, 'We don't want you.' We need to ask ourselves, 'When will we see a government acting with integrity, honouring its commitments to the United Nations refugee convention and treating human beings like human beings?'
One of the other points I'd like to raise is on the delivery of documents. The electronic sending of documents highlights another query, being that, as the Migration Act already provides for the delivery of documents by email, fax and other electronic means, this would possibly cover documents via an online account. Under schedule 2 of this bill, the parliament can send these documents to a person through their online ImmiAccount. This is a tragedy just waiting to happen for so many vulnerable people who have come to us for help and for our compassion. This will also apply to minors. A document under this schedule of the bill can be sent to a person the minister 'reasonably believes' to be the carer of a minor. Again, this is a tragedy waiting to happen. You can imagine how many possible slip-ups and mistakes could be made through this process. You can imagine what boundaries will be put around who the minister 'reasonably believes' to be the carer of a minor. I don't want to put any trust into this system and into what the minister would believe is 'reasonable'. There have been so many mistakes and slip-ups, and then, of course, there has been the genuine, full-on cruelty, on behalf of this government, to those seeking asylum and seeking protection by this country. You will forgive us Greens for not trusting that this government would implement the 'reasonable' aspect of this legislation in any sensible way.
The final insult added to injury contained in this cruel and cold-hearted bill is that the government wants to be able to charge people it tries to send back to horrific situations that they have in fact fled. These are people who have come to Australia seeking asylum. The government wants to charge these people for having the door slammed in their face. To add insult to injury, here's the government saying, 'We're saying no. We're slamming the door in your face. We're treating you appallingly. And now, you can pay for it.'
We do not support measures that make life even harder for those seeking asylum. The Greens will not be supporting this bill in its current form, because it is just another version of the government's overreach and an attempt to demonise and humiliate innocent people who have dared to seek the safety and protection of this country. It is an attempt to demonise and humiliate people to whom we have already done so much harm. It is appalling.
The Greens have now, for an extremely long time, stood up for the most vulnerable members of our community and stood up for those seeking to be members of our community—those who have fled the oppression, violence and horrific situations that we have talked about in this chamber many times. We will not be supporting this bill in its current form because it's designed to make life even harder for those people seeking asylum. People will end up being pinged between countries, where we say, as a nation, 'It's not our problem,' and the other country says, 'It's not our problem.' It gives the lie to requiring that their removal must occur as soon as is reasonably practicable. It means that people, as we have seen, are condemned to years and years of being stateless, of not knowing their future, of not having a life, of not knowing what's happening to their family and, as Senator McKim just pointed out, of not even once being able to hug their child. Put yourself in those circumstances: of never having spent any time with your child, simply because you fled an unacceptable, horrific situation—a thing that I warrant that any member of this chamber would do if their families and their lives were at risk, and particularly if their families were at risk. I know personally that I would have done and would do anything to protect my family and my child. Put yourselves into the shoes of those who sometimes have had to make that horrific decision to leave other family members behind. They're still in that situation. They can't go back to their country of birth. Then they're stuck here in this country, being treated appallingly. We will stand against that every single time. We will not be supporting this bill in its current form.
This afternoon, as we discuss the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018, we are considering some reasonably simple and important amendments that the opposition supports. These include amendments to the Migration Act 1958, the Customs Act 1901 and the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. I contend that while these amendments are important and rational, there is a great deal that is completely irrational and illogical going on within this government and within the Department of Home Affairs as it pertains to the management of both the Customs Act 1901 and the Migration Act 1958.
We've seen a Minister for Home Affairs who is woefully incompetent in his management of his portfolio responsibilities. I've seen this firsthand through my work on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where we've done numerous inquiries into issues that pertain to removals, to offshore processing and to other matters within the Migration Act. The member for Dickson has been voted previously the worst health minister in living memory and now, as Minister for Home Affairs, he is clearly very much outdoing himself.
We seem to be able to deal with things like the details in the Migration Act and the Customs Act for the removal of noncitizens—simple legislative amendments like that. But there is something missing in action from this government and the minister; there is an endemic failure to negotiate other third-country resettlement options for the refugees on Manus Island and Nauru. We have haphazard management within this megadepartment. The minister's failings run deeply throughout this. We've seen a tick-and-flick approach to immigration, which has seen crisis after crisis and failure after failure.
One of the consistent complaints that I've heard, along with colleagues—and I know that this is something we experience in our electoral offices—is how visa-processing times within the Department of Home Affairs have completely blown out. I'm sure that members on the other side of this Senate are also receiving these complaints about processing times, which should be within this government's control.
For example, last year we saw processing times for 90 per cent of applications at 19 months. For the month ending 30 June this year the processing time for 90 per cent of applications for partner visas was 30 months. Just this week in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee we've been looking at domestic violence and abuse that's facilitated, frankly, through the visa application process. It was really quite confronting to see the disconnect between the department's lack of acknowledgement of the issue and the lack of effectiveness of that response up against the very real and traumatic experiences of people subject to this kind of abuse. It was really clear, for example, how a long visa-processing time could be used to do things like facilitate dowry abuse by a potential spouse. Essentially, that is extorting money from a spouse.
On the other side it also means that couples are waiting 2½ years, putting their lives on hold, for their partner's visa to be approved. Partner visas are just one of the many types of visas available in Australia. We have a real issue with visa processing times. We call on the government to do something about this and fix this growing backlog. But it's very hard to see how they will be able to fix this backlog with the kinds of morale and staffing issues that exist, both within Australian Border Force and the immigration department.
We've seen the minister beat his chest about cutting Australia's total migration program and the number of permanent migrants settling in Australia. Again, we have legislation here before us that amends the Migration Act, the Customs Act and the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act but doesn't address the core issues of concern to our nation. They are worthy and important amendments in and of themselves, but this government time and time again fails to deal with the substantively important issues within immigration that should be dealt with. We still have vulnerable asylum seekers and children supposedly settled in Nauru but effectively detained there, who haven't yet had migration to America or other places offered to them, all of which is a sign of how long this government has taken to resolve our offshore processing issues.
In the last financial year we saw some 162,000 people granted permanent visas in Australia. That included those on skilled visas, who are absolutely keen to call this country home, and people who have been granted family reunion visas such as partner visas. In fact, when the government say they're cutting immigration numbers, in many cases these people are already in Australia on other kinds of visas, be they student visas, visitor visas or tourist visas. They might be here with a spouse. They might be here on holiday visas visiting their family. In fact, the population base is already here. The government talk about slashing migration numbers, but it's actually a completely false premise when, actually, the government have already granted visas to a great, great many of these people who are in Australia but have just not resolved their visa status, and that puts a great deal of hardship on Australian citizens and their families in managing these issues.
We've seen a reduction of 21,000 compared to previous years, and that was splashed as a so-called cut to Australia's permanent migration levels. But, just as I highlighted before, there were over 176,000 people on bridging visas—38,000 people more than compared with 30 June 2018. We know that bridging visas are just temporary. They allow people to stay in Australia after their current visas cease while they wait for their next visa applications to be processed or while they make arrangements to leave the country.
In speaking to this bill, we support the legislation but we note that there are great many significant issues in immigration, border protection and customs that this government is failing to resolve.
I rise to speak on Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018, and, in doing so, also support the comments made by my colleagues who spoke before, Senator Siewert and Senator McKim. The Greens have some considerable concerns in relation to a number of the amendments that are designed to expand the application of the 'visa bar' under the Migration Act, and we've requested information from the minister in relation to this. In fact, we're hoping that we can have some honesty and transparency from the government in relation to this so that we can know with full confidence exactly what the consequences will be if and when this legislation passes. We know that, when the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights responded to this piece of legislation, they had concerns as well.
Firstly, we know that the bill seeks to clarify that, if a person is unsuccessfully removed from Australia under section 198, they do not require a visa to return. Secondly, the bill provides that, where a person leaves the migration zone but returns as the result of an unsuccessful section 198 removal, they will remain subject to a statutory bar against applying for further visas. Thirdly, our understanding of the bill is that it enables the department to deliver documents to a person through their online ImmiAccount and charge them for the so-called privilege. We really would like some of the implications of this bill to be clarified by the government before it passes into law. One of the reasons why clarification is important is that, when we're dealing with issues of immigration, when we're dealing with issues of whether a person is to be removed from Australia or not, it needs to be absolutely crystal clear what those conditions are and what those individuals have a right to. It does seem a little bit strange that we'd charge people for the privilege of the government wanting to remove them.
Section 42 of the Migration Act provides that a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect. A non-citizen who is in a migration zone without a valid visa will be deemed as an unlawful non-citizen. The act requires the removal from the migration zone of any non-citizen who does not hold a visa in effect and is unable to resolve their visa status. This bill, as we know, requires the removal to occur as soon as reasonably practicable. We need to be really clear about the conditions by which people can be removed—what the abilities are to understand personal and special circumstances. We don't just want to be giving more powers to the government to remove people without proper recourse. There are a variety of reasons why some people might not have the right visa or why a perceived visa breach has occurred. Also, there are some people who simply don't abide by the rules, and they, of course, should be dealt with properly. But you can't make everything more difficult for everyone simply because the government wants to look tough at the border for the sake of it. We need to make sure there is a proper process and understanding of how these new rules would be applied.
We have real concerns about the amendments relating to further visa applications. Under section 48 of the Migration Act a person is barred from applying for most visas if they are in the migration zone and do not hold a substantive visa—that is, if they're on a bridging visa. We know there are a variety of reasons that individuals are put on bridging visas, and bridging visas are, of course, a legitimate process for ensuring that we can resolve immigration matters and visa complications. They're a legitimate part of ensuring that we can resolve these issues without the expense and heartache of having to remove people unnecessarily. The bill amends sections 48 and 48A in line with its amendments to section 42, so when a person returns to Australia they'll be taken to have been continuously in the migration zone. This means that if prior to the person's removal they would have been barred from making a visa application under section 48, this will continue to be the case when they return to Australia.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised concerns about this measure, which it noted will expand the circumstances in which the statutory visa bar applies.
We can't get into a situation where people aren't able to apply for the appropriate visa simply because the letter of the law hasn't taken into consideration all of the complexities that go along with people's lives—that just because somebody is on a bridging visa they are therefore barred from applying for another substantive visa along the way. We can't have people living in limbo or constantly in fear of removal.
The committee has suggested that the proposed amendments are not 'compatible with the right to liberty and right to an effective remedy, as well as with the obligation to consider the best interests of the child'. We need to understand that when we are making decisions about rules and procedures for how people's visas are granted or removed there is always an element of understanding that human life is complicated. You can't always have a black-and-wide process that everybody will be able to follow to the tee. Things happen. People end up in situations where relatives are sick or an accident happens or a baby is born or there is simply the complication of getting from one side of a country to another to the appropriate immigration office or consulate. There are a variety of reasons why we need to have some discretion to ensure that people aren't left without a choice because new rules barring certain visas have been put in place.
The committee also suggested:
… there is a risk that a person barred from applying for a new protection visa (for example) 'could be subject to immigration detention for an extended period given that an attempt to deport the person has already failed', or could be deported even if owed protection obligations.
If we haven't been able to deport somebody, because we owe them protection, the default position shouldn't be that they get locked up and punished in immigration detention. That is just ridiculous. We need to make sure that people who are owed protection have every opportunity to apply for the appropriate type of visa that would ensure Australia's obligations are invoked. Making it difficult, and near impossible, for them to apply for the appropriate visa, therefore saying they are unlawful and therefore can be removed, is setting people up to fail. The result will be that innocent people are kept in immigration detention indefinitely. We know all of the problems with immigration detention, not the least being that there is no judicial review. There is no ability for anyone to have their detention effectively challenged, looked at by an independent prosecutor or judge, and a decision made that those people perhaps should be allowed to live outside detention while their visa issues are resolved.
Of course, it's very expensive to keep people locked up in immigration detention simply because the bureaucracy made it too hard for everyone to understand what the situation was in order to ascertain what the appropriate visa application should have been. We know that a number of people kept in immigration detention here on the Australian mainland—we're not talking about people necessarily who arrived by boat in the past; we're talking also about people who have flown into this country on very legitimate visas—are people for whom, for whatever reason, it is now unsafe to return home. Those people deserve the right to have a proper process, a valid process, to apply for proper protection and to invoke Australia's obligations for protection. Punishing them by putting them in immigration detention, hoping that they would drop their plea for help, is just mean spirited and unnecessary.
There are many other issues in relation to this bill that the Greens have concerns about. It would be no surprise to anybody that when this government decides to 'get tough' at the border, whatever that means—we understand there are plenty of people here in Australia who have overstayed their visas. We don't hear the Prime Minister talking about those people. We constantly hear, when it comes to this debate, the beat-up and obsession with those who are the most vulnerable. They are individuals and their families who have fled war, torture and persecution, who are stateless and perhaps have no other option than to wait it out in Australia's awful, harsh immigration detention centres, hoping that one day there will be a change of heart or mind from this government.
It's no surprise that the Greens will not be supporting this legislation. While we're standing here today and debating this particular bill there are still children detained on Nauru, out of sight and out of mind. They're the same children who, when I was there five years ago, pleaded with me not to leave them living in limbo. Those children and their families deserve to have their suffering ended. They deserve to have Australia welcome them and give them an opportunity to rebuild their lives, and to get on with being productive members of our community. Those children have suffered enough under the hands of this hideous and cruel government.
There are other refugees on Nauru, of course, aside from children. Many of them are fathers whose children are here in Australia because they became sick. They became so sick and tortured by their experiences, of being locked up on that island prison, that they had to be sent back to Australia on the advice of doctors who said they simply could not spend one extra day on Nauru. These children are here in Australia but a number of fathers are left, separated from their families, on Nauru. It is just unnecessary brutality to see families split up in this manner. It's designed to make the suffering that much worse and even more damaging. It's designed to break the spirits of these very resilient and brave people who did what they needed to do to get their families out of some pretty hideous situations overseas, whether that be war in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan or on the Afghan-Pakistan border. They could be Hazara families who lived through generations of persecution or young Tamil families who are Catholic and, as a result of being trained professionals in their homeland, were targeted by the current regime. These are individuals who deserve to have their suffering ended.
Of course, we cannot forget the men who are left on Manus Island. I had a message from a refugee on Manus Island, only last night, informing me that there had been two attempted suicides on the island yesterday. That is what we have done to these people. We have tortured them and been unnecessarily cruel and brutal, pushing them to a point of self-destruction, and their only way out is to end their own lives. These are individuals who fled war, torture and persecution. They came to Australia for our help, for our care and for our compassion, and we treated them appallingly, using them as political pawns. This government, day after day, is playing politics with the lives of these individuals. Day after day they are using these individuals as examples of how tough, apparently, this government is. I don't think it's very tough to beat up on some of the world's most vulnerable people. I don't think it's very tough to keep helpless, vulnerable refugees and children locked up on island prisons and used as an example to weaponise political strategy back here at home. The lives of these children have been destroyed because of the toxic politics of this government and the toxic politics and the internal machinations of the coalition.
Of course Scott Morrison may have shored up his leadership in the Liberal Party last night—change the rules once you're in, and lock it in. What does that say about how safe the Prime Minister must be feeling? He thought there was a reason to have an emergency meeting for his leadership, but he won't have an emergency meeting to get sick, suffering children off Nauru. That shows you everything you need to know about the priorities of this government and the priorities of this Prime Minister. He's more worried about his own job than he is about the vulnerable people that he sent to these island prisons in Manus and on Nauru. As we are debating this piece of legislation, when we're weighing up whether to give this government more power to just simply deny people visas or block them from being able to apply for the appropriate visa, we cannot forget that this is all in the context of the political scaremongering and manipulation of the lives of very real people—children and their families—who are left stranded on Nauru and on Manus Island.
To the men on Manus Island, who are suffering today as a result of two members of their group and their community who attempted suicide yesterday, I say please don't give up hope. There are plenty of decent Australians who know that what this government is doing is wrong. There are many decent Australians who want this policy to change. We have not given up. We will continue to fight for you. We will continue to fight for decency. We will continue to make sure that the stain that has been smeared on Australia's national identity will, at one point, be scrubbed, because we are a country of a fair go. We are a country that understands and celebrates diversity, opportunity and respect. The moment we can get rid of this government, we might be able to get on with putting a bit more decency and a bit more compassion back on the table. Please don't give up. Understand that there are people in this place, on all sides of politics, who know that this current regime is toxic. It's brutal and it's time it ended.
I will go to Senator Faruqi. The normal rule is to allow the Senate to continue a debate.
I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator Nick McKim and Senator Rachel Siewert on this particular bill. We know that this bill will allow offshore processing—it is within the scope of this bill—and we know the horrendous outcomes of offshore processing on men, on women and on children. People are stuck there in those hellholes just because this government does not want people who look like them to come here to Australia, and this bill will allow that to continue.
I also want to raise some of the issues that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights raised as concerns about this particular bill and which will expand the circumstances in which the statutory visa bar applies. This is really concerning. The committee queried— (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, you will be in continuation when debate resumes.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the urgent, unplanned, extraordinary Liberal party room meeting last night, which, after an hour—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Please stop the clock. It is impossible to rule on the inevitable points of order unless I can hear the question.
They're a bit touchy, Mr President! I refer to the urgent, unplanned Liberal party room meeting last night, which, after an hour, approved new rules in an attempt to stop the Liberal leadership chaos. In response to the rule change, Senator Stoker last night said that she was hesitant because:
… I like the idea that a leader has an incentive to be responsive to the party room; and someone who can't confidently command half a party room should have cause to re-evaluate their approach.
Is Senator Stoker correct?
I'm pleased to confirm that the Liberal Party had a party room meeting last night after a meeting of Liberal ministers. That was to consider a proposal developed by our party whips at the request of the leadership group which will guarantee to the Australian people that, if Scott Morrison is elected Prime Minister at the next election—so he can continue to deliver stronger growth and more jobs and ensure that Australians are safe and secure—we will give an absolute commitment that he will remain Prime Minister for the full parliamentary term to the next election. That is a rule that can only be changed by a two-thirds majority—unlike in the Labor Party, where a similar rule can be changed with a simple majority. Arguably, Mr Shorten's position is now less secure and less stable than the position of our Prime Minister. No doubt that is why the Labor Party is starting to get worried about—
Why didn't you show Malcolm this loyalty?
I'm quite bemused about how interested the Labor Party is in the internal affairs of the Liberal Party. I think, perhaps, you should pay a bit more attention to your own internal affairs. Let me say that we did have a very good discussion in our party room last night. Overwhelmingly, the party room adopted the new rule: that, if elected to government as Prime Minister, the leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party will remain in that position as Prime Minister until the subsequent election. That is because we respect the will of the Australian people expressed at an election.
Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Mr Morrison pretends to be the reluctant Prime Minister and, after more than three months, still refuses to explain why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister. Given Mr Morrison no longer needs to retain the support of the majority of the party room, why isn't Malcolm Turnbull the Prime Minister?
Mr Morrison, to continue as Prime Minister after the next election, needs to secure the support of the Australian people. That is what he needs to secure. As we go to the next election, we will go with our record of achievement, having turned around the weakening economy we inherited from Labor, having turned around the rising unemployment rate that we inherited from Labor and having turned around the rapidly deteriorating budget position that we inherited from Labor. We will go with our record of achievement. We will go with our plans for the future. We will go to the election explaining to the Australian people how Labor's antibusiness, politics-of-envy, socialist agenda will make Australia weaker and Australians poorer. We will go to the next election with the commitment to the Australian people that, if they give Scott Morrison their confidence as Prime Minister, he will continue as Prime Minister to the election after that.
Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
Why is Mr Morrison prepared to call an urgent, unplanned meeting of the Liberal Party to protect his own job but not to keep his promise to deal with energy policy, stagnant wage growth or discrimination against LGBTIQ students? Isn't it clear the only thing Mr Morrison and the Liberals are interested in is themselves and their own leadership?
I completely reject the premise of the question. Clearly the Australian people want to know that, if they give their confidence to Scott Morrison at the next election, he will continue on as Prime Minister to the next election. We have given them that firm commitment. We have established a rule that can give them that guarantee. Of course, that is an absolutely significant decision. It's an important decision. It was the initiative of the leadership group, who requested our whips to come forward with a proposal. It was adopted unanimously by our ministry and overwhelmingly endorsed by our party room. I believe it's a rule change that has the overwhelming support of the Australian people.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Fifield. Will the minister update the Senate on the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in my home state of Queensland? How does the Liberal-National government's strong economic management help to create a strong economy that allows it to deliver the essential services—like the NDIS—that Australians rely on without raising taxes?
Thank you, Senator McGrath, for the question. The Liberal-National government is delivering the NDIS to give people with disability choice and control. We're able to deliver these essential services without raising taxes on Australian families because of our strong economic management. I can advise colleagues that there are now more than 200,000 participants receiving supports under the NDIS, and over 60,000—or almost one in three—are receiving supports for the very first time. In Queensland, there are more than 25,000 people who are currently receiving support.
Delivering this reform to improve outcomes for Australians with a significant and permanent disability will involve challenges. With a venture of this scale, that is inevitably the case. But the important thing is to address those issues quickly and efficiently as they arise to ensure the management of the scheme into the future. The National Disability Insurance Agency, with the support of the Commonwealth and all states and territories, has a number of projects underway to improve the NDIS. From 1 October, a new general participant pathway will be rolled out. NDIS participants will have face-to-face planning meetings that deliver easier-to-understand plans supported by a single point of contact. The new pathway was designed with a lot of input from participants and was successfully piloted in Victoria, with more than 1,000 participants. Other improvements include: updating the myplace portal; the implementation of the Independent Pricing Review; an enhanced provider finder; and specialist pathways for participants with particular disabilities. These are significant improvements and they are delivering the supports that Australians with disability are entitled to.
Senator McGrath, a supplementary question.
As the NDIS supports individual choice and control for people with a disability, how is the government supporting growth in the disability service market to support this outcome, including by delivering landmark funding without raising taxes?
In the full scheme, 460,000 Australians are expected to be NDIS participants, and demand for disability services is projected to require up to 90,000 additional full-time equivalent workers over the next five years. In the September 2018 quarter, the number of active registered providers increased by 15 per cent, from 8,457 to 9,693 providers. The government recognise the need to support providers to transition to a new market model and help grow the disability workforce. Our supports include: investing $45.6 million through the new NDIS Jobs and Market Fund, announced in the 2018-19 budget, in targeted projects to grow the provider market and workforce; providing $33 million through the Boosting the Local Care Workforce Program for regional coordinators and specialist coordinators; and business transition advice and grants to assist providers to meet the expanding workforce requirements.
Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question.
How is the government sustainably funding essential services like the NDIS without raising taxes?
Our strong economic management is driving jobs, investment and economic growth and underwriting the provision of services that Australians rely on. We're delivering a strong economy, with over 1.1 million new jobs since we came to government, the strongest growth in youth jobs in recorded history and economic growth the envy of the developed world. Also, the proportion of working-age people on a welfare payment is at its lowest point in 25 years.
Because our economy is strong, because our economy is growing, we're investing record funds into health and schools. Because our economy is growing, more families get the support they need through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are delivering these services without increasing the tax burden on working families, which is in a direct contrast to the approach of those opposite. They want to increase taxes dramatically. We're able to deliver services without increasing taxes.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the urgent, unplanned Liberal party room meeting last night which, after an hour, approved new rules in an attempt to stop the Liberal leadership chaos. Just last month, Mr Morrison ruled out changes to the Liberal Party's leadership rules, stating:
John Howard also had this strong view and it is that we represent our elected members of Parliament, they go to Parliament and they elect who their leader is to run their Parliamentary party … we don't have any plans to change our processes …
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement?
Yes, at the time when the Prime Minister made that statement, we didn't have any plans to change our processes. But guess what? Subsequent to that the leadership team has had a number of conversations about what we should do in order to ensure that the Australian people can have confidence that Scott Morrison, if successful at the next election, will continue to serve as our Prime Minister until the election after that. We asked the whips to come forward with a proposed rule, which they did. It was unanimously endorsed by our Liberal ministers in the Liberal ministry meeting yesterday and also overwhelmingly supported by our party room and by my good friend and valued colleague Senator Stoker, who made that point yesterday in her interview as well.
I know that the Labor Party is very worried, because Mr Shorten's position is much less secure now. All the Labor Party needs is 50 per cent plus one. We know that Mr Albanese has been hanging in the shadows for a very long time, looking to find the 50 per cent plus one that would help secure the leadership change in the Labor Party. We know that the position of the leader of the Liberal Party, as elected Prime Minister, is now a much stronger, more stable position than the position of Mr Shorten, so I'm not surprised by those questions. No doubt Senator Kitching, as a strong advocate and a strong personal supporter of Mr Shorten, will soon be moving a motion in the caucus for the Labor caucus to adopt this Liberal Party rule. Good luck. I wish you good luck because we, of course, are very keen to see Mr Shorten continue all the way to the next election.
Senator Kitching, a supplementary question.
Mr Morrison declared that 'regulating for culture is never effective'. I'll read that again: 'regulating for culture is never effective'. Can the minister confirm nothing has changed the culture that has created a chaotic, divided and dysfunctional government?
On this side, we are a strong and united Liberal-National party team which has delivered stronger growth, more jobs and lower unemployment, and which is getting the budget back into surplus and sorting out the mess we inherited from the Labor Party. Everybody across Australia knows that when we came into government we inherited from the Labor Party a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position despite all these Labor tax grabs—one after the other; tax grabs that they want to bring back, which would again lead to lower growth, fewer jobs, higher unemployment and lower wages over time.
Our message to the Australian people is that Mr Shorten, as Prime Minister, would make Australia weaker and would make you poorer. Don't vote for him. We will continue to make the Australian economy stronger and create better opportunities for all Australians to get ahead, to get a job, to build a career here in Australia and, indeed, we will ensure that a sound budget position ensures that we can fund all of the important services provided by government.
Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.
The Prime Minister voted against the banking royal commission 26 times before claiming it was his idea. He supported the National Energy Guarantee before opposing it. He opposed Liberal leadership rules but now champions them. How can Australians know when this Prime Minister is actually committed to something, or if he's just pretending?
Our Prime Minister is somebody who works every single day to make our economy stronger, create more jobs, get the budget back into surplus, and ensure that Australians can be safe and secure. Senator Kitching asks me about the banking royal commission. Well, guess what? Who initiated the banking royal commission? Who was that? It was Treasurer Morrison. It was Treasurer Morrison who initiated the banking royal commission.
You ask us about the change in rules when it comes to the Liberal Party leadership. Guess what? Mr Morrison, as well as being a strong and effective leader, is also somebody who listens and who acts on what he has learned. We've gone through a process internally within the parliamentary Liberal Party which has led to the change that we announced yesterday. I believe it's a change that has the overwhelming support of the Australian people. It certainly had the overwhelming support of our party room last night. Of course, I'm not surprised the Labor Party is worried.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Minister, yesterday at COP24, Sir David Attenborough highlighted the climate emergency as 'the greatest threat to civilisation' and said we needed 'real urgent leadership'. Last night, the Liberal Party called an emergency meeting to discuss the leadership of the Morrison government. When will this government stop talking about themselves and, instead, get on with meaningful climate action?
This government are committed to meaningful action on climate change. We, of course, as a country, have exceeded our commitments on the Kyoto 1. We are well and truly on track to meet our commitments under Kyoto 2. It's a matter of public record that we signed on to commitments in Paris for further emissions reductions of 26 per cent to 28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels.
But, of course, on this side of the parliament, we are pursuing initiatives to strengthen environmental protection and reduce emissions in a way that is also economically responsible. I had thought that that was the Greens' position at some point because, of course, you voted with us to vote down the Labor Party's carbon pollution reduction scheme. You voted—and I think Senator Hanson-Young was actually here. Senator Hanson-Young voted against the carbon pollution reduction scheme. No doubt, if the Greens had voted with Labor to impose the carbon pollution reduction scheme, I suspect it would have been very hard for us to unscramble the egg. It is very much the Greens who have helped us pursue environmental policies in a way that is economically responsible.
So, quite frankly, I can't take Senator Hanson-Young very seriously when I'm aware of the track record of her personally and her party when it comes to these matters. We will continue to pursue effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible, and it's a matter of public record that we are delivering on the commitments that we have made.
Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.
This morning, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said, 'There is a significant percentage of coalition members who don't believe climate change is real.' Can the minister please tell the Australian people who these members are and how many of them are in your cabinet?
I don't agree with the former Prime Minister, and I'm not aware that he expressed that view while he was Prime Minister.
Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question.
The former Prime Minister has belled the cat over the Morrison government's lack of credible, coherent climate policy due to—and he said this again this morning—'ideology and ignorance'. When will the Prime Minister stand up to the climate sceptics and the science deniers in your party and get real about the climate emergency?
The first point I would make is that the emissions reduction target that is the policy of this government is precisely the same as the emissions reduction target under the Turnbull government, so I'm not quite sure what Senator Hanson-Young is referring to there. In relation to the other comments, I just remind Senator Hanson-Young again that it was the Greens, of course, that voted with Liberal-National senators to ensure that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would not become law. I thought at the time that was because you wanted to protect the Australian economy from an excessive tax which would harm growth in a way that would actually not have reduced emissions but which would have just shifted emissions overseas where, for the same level of economic output, emissions would have been higher. It sounds like you're having second thoughts and that you're now trying to come back at it from the other side, but our position remains consistent. Our position is, as it has always been, that we want to reduce emissions in a way that is economically sensible, and that is our policy.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. Minister, how are the free trade agreements delivered by the Liberal-National government creating benefits for Australian businesses, farmers, producers and exporters? How do these agreements help to create the strong economy that allows the government to deliver essential services without raising taxes?
I thank Senator Bushby for his question and his strong advocacy on behalf of all Australian businesses—but particularly Tasmanian businesses—to be able to increase their exports. Indeed, there is great news today from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the release of their balance of payments update. What we've learnt today is:
The balance on goods and services surplus in the September quarter 2018 was $6,607 million, a rise of $2,704 million. Exports of goods and services rose $3,390 million …
That means that Australian exports are up by close to $3.4 billion in terms of sales from our country and our surplus position in terms of our trade is getting stronger, all of it helped and driven by the fact that our government has increased access for Australian businesses to be able to sell their goods to the world. Where and how are we seeing that growth occur? For example, in China, where one of our free trade agreements was struck, we saw exports grow by 22 per cent last year. Exports of milk powder and skincare products more than doubled. Nickel exports more than quadrupled. Exports of lobster or table grapes grew some eightfold.
What does this strong export growth mean? It means more revenue for Australian businesses, more jobs for Australian employees and better wages for Australian employees. And what does that mean? That means, of course, those businesses, those people with jobs and those people with better jobs are paying more tax. More tax means more revenue for investment in essential services such as health, education and welfare that our government delivers. And, because we've got more exports and more revenue coming from those exports, that means we can deliver those services without the need for the higher taxes that those opposite have planned for Australians if they were to go— (Time expired)
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Can the minister inform the Senate how the government is supporting small and medium enterprise export opportunities, and how this contributes to building a stronger economy that delivers essential services without the need to raise taxes?
Indeed, we are working hard to ensure that small and medium businesses can take advantage of our free trade agreements and be at the forefront of this export growth that we're seeing across so much of Australian industry. Ashgrove, for example, in Senator Bushby's home state of Tasmania—one of Australia's largest, family-owned dairy operations—have welcomed the fact that our trade agreements allow them to access new markets with lower prices, in terms of what they can sell or higher margins, because they no longer face the types of tariff barriers that were there.
We're giving practical assistance to small and medium businesses too. In this year's budget, we announced the $20 million Small and Medium Enterprises Export Hubs to assist small businesses in breaking down barriers to export markets. We've continued to ensure that the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, which had funding savaged by those opposite, has been supported by over $60 million of additional funding by our government—all of it helping to fuel our farmers and our businesses to sell more Australian goods to the world.
Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
How does a strong trading environment help more broadly to create a stronger economy and more jobs, and allow the government to deliver essential services without raising taxes?
As I said at the outset, by selling more goods and services to the world—it's pretty simple economics which you'd hope that those opposite understood, but they don't seem to. By selling more and by exporting more, Australian businesses are paying more tax and there is more revenue out of that higher revenue pool from those exports.
That allows us to invest more in goods and services and to bring the budget back to balance, and to do it all without the types of tax hikes that those opposite have planned for the Australian economy. Those opposite will see Australian wage payers paying higher taxes, Australian retirees paying higher taxes, Australians who want to buy an investment property paying higher taxes, Australians who are renting paying higher rentals and Australians paying higher rates on their electricity bills. All of that, of course, will compound to see a less competitive Australian economy in the future, whereas our policies have delivered greater strength for Australian exporters, greater sales and greater revenue: a virtuous cycle which allows us to keep taxes low—to drive them down—and still balance the budget and invest in key services. (Time expired)
My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Before the lead-up to the Wentworth by-election, Mr Morrison declared:
… I believe it's very important that we act in this parliament over the next fortnight to deal with the unnecessary anxiety that has been created for children and their parents in relation to potential discrimination and expulsion of students on the basis of their sexuality.
So why did the Morrison government vote to prevent the parliament from doing what Mr Morrison said he would do urgently?
The government is absolutely committed to resolve in a fair and balanced way the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to remove discrimination against students before the end of the parliamentary sitting year. I would refer Senator Pratt to a statement that I made in the chamber on behalf of the Prime Minister before the Wentworth by-election. As the Prime Minister announced on Saturday, the government will be moving amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to ensure that no student of a non-state school can be expelled on the basis of sexuality.
As part of our consultations with the opposition, the Attorney-General is meeting today with the shadow Attorney-General to discuss our proposed draft amendments to give effect to that commitment. Subject to agreement between the government and the opposition in relation to our proposed amendments, we would be in a position to introduce those amendments as soon as possible during that sitting fortnight.
The shadow Attorney-General has been absolutely unprepared to pursue reasonable compromise—absolutely unprepared to pursue reasonable compromise! We want to ensure that we protect students by also making sure that religious schools are not exposed to the inappropriate risk of vexatious litigation by activists in this field. We want to ensure that religious schools can continue to apply reasonable rules and teach children consistent with the tenets of their faith. That is not unreasonable.
The government stands ready to deal with this this week. The government, in fact, is keen to deal with it this week. We have put forward some very reasonable amendments to ensure that we pursue this change in a way that is appropriately balanced. We call on the Labor Party and we call on everyone in the Senate to join in with the government to ensure—
He said one thing before Wentworth and then instructs—
I completely reject that interjection! We were very clear that we would—
It's the—
I'm very disappointed that the Labor Party wants to use this as a political weapon instead of pursuing a policy solution that has broad support. (Time expired)
Senator Pratt, a supplementary question.
Mr Morrison also told Australians on this issue:
We think that needs to be addressed, and we think it needs to be addressed urgently.
So why did the government vote to prevent the parliament doing what Mr Morrison said he'd do urgently?
Because the Labor bill was an inadequate bill. Our job is to pass good legislation, not inadequate legislation.
The thing I'm really disappointed about is that there was an opportunity here for us to pursue, in a genuinely bipartisan fashion, a resolution that would have broad community support. Instead, what the Labor Party is clearly intent on doing—they're not interested in a policy solution—is using this as a partisan political weapon. That is what you're trying to do!
If you were interested in pursuing an actual policy solution you would sit down with the government to explore opportunities for a reasonable compromise. If the Labor Party hasn't got it in it to pursue a compromise, then I would urge the crossbench to rise to the occasion and come together with the government to ensure that the reforms we pass here, removing discrimination against students before the end of the parliamentary sitting year, can be done in a way that doesn't expose religious schools to inappropriate risk in terms of litigation. (Time expired)
Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question.
The Prime Minister voted against the banking royal commission 26 times before claiming it was his idea. He supported the National Energy Guarantee before opposing it. He promised to urgently remove discrimination against LGBTIQ kids but has voted to push the legislation into next year. How can Australians know when this Prime Minister is actually committed to something or if he's just pretending?
We are doing the right thing by the Australian people. We want to remove discrimination against students before the end of the parliamentary sitting year in a way that is also fair and reasonable in terms of the job done by religious schools across Australia who are teaching about a million Australian kids. It is very important that this is done the right way. The amendments that we've put forward are entirely reasonable. They're appropriately calibrated. And if the Labor Party were genuinely interested in resolving this issue, they would come on board with us rather than seek to use this as a political weapon. The thought that you should have rammed this through with a gag is entirely inappropriate.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator Collins, I've called you to order on a number of occasions.
It was entirely inappropriate for you to seek to ram this through with a gag in the absence of a broad consensus in support of the legislation. If you were actually interested in the issue you would sit down with the government, even at this late stage, to find a compromise that is in the public interest. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. I ask Senator Cash: how is the Liberal-National government continuing to work to combat the scourge of people smuggling in our area and to keep Australia safe?
I thank Senator Macdonald for his question, and I know that he has a keen interest in ensuring that the boats continue to be stopped. In answer to Senator Macdonald's question, it is all about putting in place policies that are tough but fair. In terms of the policies that the coalition government has continued to put in place, they are tough but they are certainly fair and what they have done is they have stopped the boats. We have as a government secured our nation's borders.
We understand as a Liberal-National government that border security, the security of the Australian people and the Australian nation, is a fundamental responsibility of the Commonwealth government. But this has not occurred by accident. This has occurred because we have stood firm. We have stood down the people smugglers. In fact, Senator Macdonald, you would be aware that we have stood down opposition from the Labor Party and the Australian Greens. We have put in place policies that the Labor Party and the Australian Greens said would never work. They said they were impossible. We have turned back the boats when have they tried to come to Australia illegally. That has worked. It is something those on the other side said was impossible. We introduced temporary protection visas. Again, it's something that those on the other side said would never work. More importantly, we made the vital decision that anybody who attempted to come here illegally would never be settled in Australia.
As a result of those tough but fair policies we have ensured that we have taken back, from the outsourcing to people smugglers, border security policy in Australia. We will always ensure that the security of our nation and the security of the Australian people are put at the paramount section of policy.
Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that very, very clear answer to the question and I ask the minister further: why is smashing the people smugglers' evil trade at the core of the government's strategy to secure our borders?
It's because, when you outsource border protection to the people smugglers, you actually are admitting that you have lost control of our borders. On this side of the chamber—on the Liberal-National side of politics—we will always ensure that the security of our nation and the security of the Australian people is put as a fundamental responsibility of the Commonwealth government. Otherwise you get chaos and, when you get chaos under Labor and the Greens, what you see is 50,000 people arriving here illegally on over 800 boats. What you also see is 1,200 deaths at sea—that we know of. What you also see is over 8,000 children being detained when Labor were last in government. What you also see is 17 detention centres being opened. You have to keep opening detention centre after detention centre because of the chaos that is put in place by losing control of our borders. (Time expired)
Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question.
I thank the minister again for that very clear explanation of the overwhelming success of the government's policy, and I ask the minister: is she aware of any ongoing threats to our nation's border security?
It is the policies of a future Labor government, being supported by the Australian Greens. That's because we know that so many on the Labor side of politics actually believe—they're prepared to admit—in open borders. They believe in outsourcing border security to the people smugglers. They think it's okay that 50,000 people arrived here illegally. They think it is okay that those people actually displaced people who had been waiting in camps overseas not for five years and not for 10 years—I met people who have been in camps for in excess of 20 years. Their children were actually born in the camps. Those people don't seek to come here illegally. What we also never want to see on our side of politics are people dying as a result of losing control of our borders. In excess of 1,200 people died at sea that we know of. We will never allow that to happen whilst we are in government. (Time expired)
My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan. In 2017, Australia exported almost two million sheep, principally to destinations in the Middle East. Australia's live export trade is worth $2 billion annually, contributes thousands of jobs and sustains many hundreds of hardworking Australians. However, recent changes now require independent observers on every ship to monitor the state of each animal, costing the exporter $1,300 to $1,800 a day. Does the minister agree with this imposition of costs on farmers and does he believe that, as a general principle, the powers of the Australian government should extend beyond our borders to dictate what happens to products after they are sold and leave our shores?
I thank Senator Anning for his question. Up-front, the government is a strong supporter of the export of live animals from Australia because it does support thousands of Australians in this country. There are not just jobs for those on farm who might manage sheep or cattle but also, importantly, thousands of other jobs for truck drivers, for helicopter pilots—
Vets.
and for vets—thank you, Senator McKenzie. There are thousands of jobs in this industry. Indeed, around 10,000 people in this country rely on the live trade of animals for their livelihoods themselves. It is an industry that proudly supports the food production of many countries in our region, and that's something else to be proud of as well, because it's Australian produce and Australian protein that helps feed so many people around the world.
Now to Senator Anning's question: the government do support ensuring that the live animal trade is appropriately regulated and monitored. We do support ensuring that animals reared, born and grown here are treated humanely overseas. That's why we have the very stringent Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System for live trade. That is why, because of some misbehaviour in the industry over the last year, we have acted immediately and strongly to strengthen the regulations and oversight of this industry. The government have conducted two different reviews, the outcomes of which Senator Anning referred to. The McCarthy review did make recommendations around independent observers on ships, and the government have gladly agreed to that recommendation. It is my understanding from discussions with the industry that it supports the adoption of the recommendations of the McCarthy review.
Senator Anning also asked whether we should ensure that there is humane treatment of animals overseas. We think we should play a role in supporting the development of humane animal welfare outcomes. Indeed, that is a great attribute of this industry, because it does help spread better standards of animal treatment and humane treatment throughout the world. (Time expired)
Senator Anning, a supplementary question.
Why does the government refuse to acknowledge that once Australian sheep have been sold to another country and have left our shores on a foreign ship their welfare is the responsibility of the purchaser and the receiving nation, and should not be a cost or burden to the Australian farmer?
Mr President, I would like to point out through you that in my experience of discussions with the Australian live export industry they want to ensure that their animals are treated humanely overseas. I know Australian farmers have a great interest in making sure that, ultimately, the animals they spend so much time caring for are humanely treated, wherever they are in the world, whether that is here or overseas. We have a shared interest with the industry in ensuring the humane treatment of those animals. That is why we have a stringent supply-chain assurance scheme established to do that very thing.
Of course, we can always improve and do better in anything in life. We can always improve in our own lives, and of course the industry can improve as well. That is why we have made a number of changes this year to ensure that this industry is sustainable and that it's always promoting better animal health outcomes, here and overseas as well.
Senator Anning, a final supplementary question.
Why does the government give priority to the demands of animal rights extremists over the interests of Australian farmers and implement policies which oblige our rural producers to spend millions of dollars for the sake of urban animal activists?
The government's actions in the space are in unison with those of Australian farmers. As I outlined before, Australian farmers want to see better outcomes for their animals, and the Australian industry as a whole wants to see better outcomes for Australian animals. That's why we support these sensible changes that we have made over the past year.
I would, however, point out that there are some here who are marching to the tune of animal activists, including some you would think would be of a different view. Senator McCarthy over there, from the Northern Territory, a territory that relies heavily on the live trade, is voting to shut down parts of that live trade and is not supporting her industry in the Northern Territory. Western Australian senators from the Labor Party, likewise, are supporting the shutdown of the trade, when 90 per cent of sheep exported from Australia right now come from Western Australia. If we shut that trade down it would mean the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in income for Australian farmers.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. This morning, former Prime Minister Turnbull said:
I strongly encourage my colleagues to work together to revive the national energy guarantee.
It was a vital piece of economic policy and it had strong support, none stronger than that of the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Will Mr Morrison heed former Prime Minister Turnbull's advice and revive the National Energy Guarantee, which will lower prices for Australians?
Order! I remind senators of my request for silence during the question being asked, on both sides.
I can confirm my answer to an earlier question. Under the Turnbull government, the policy on emissions reduction was to pursue a 26 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. That continues to be our policy. Beyond that, we have announced our energy policy to bring electricity prices down and to ensure that electricity supplies are as reliable as they possibly can be to avoid the sorts of blackouts that we experienced under Labor state governments in years gone by. That is in four key parts. We are introducing a price safety net. We are stopping price gouging. We are backing investment in reliable power—supporting 24/7 reliable power. And today, of course, the Treasurer announced that we will be introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018, which is a bill that will provide a legislative framework to strengthen the government's ability to address misconduct in electricity markets. This is, of course, a bill which creates new prohibitions against certain misconduct in electricity retail, wholesale and contract markets which is detrimental to competition or consumers. It's a measure of last resort, but it's a demonstration of our commitment to ensure that we do absolutely everything we can to bring down electricity prices and to ensure that electricity suppliers are reliable. The policy on emissions reduction today is the same as it was under Mr Turnbull. It's the same as it was under Mr Abbott.
Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.
Former Prime Minister Turnbull went on to say, 'The abandonment of the National Energy Guarantee obviously creates a vacuum in terms of energy policy at the federal level.' Why is Mr Morrison allowing chaos, division and dysfunction to leave a vacuum of energy policy at the federal level?
I completely disagree with the premise of the question. Given that you are such a student of what Mr Turnbull has to say, I would encourage you to look at one of his recent tweets, where he pointed out that he does not support Labor's policy on energy. In fact, he doesn't support Labor's policy on emissions reductions. And that is our position; it was Mr Turnbull's position and it also was Mr Abbott's position. He points out quite rightly that Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target would be bad for the economy and bad for jobs. We have adopted an appropriate emissions reduction target, which is precisely the same as it was under the Turnbull government and which is precisely the same as it was under the Abbott government and beyond that. Of course, everybody across Australia is very clear that we are focused on driving down electricity prices and ensuring reliable supply, whereas under Labor electricity prices will go up and up because they'll bring back the carbon tax.
Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.
Given the chief executive of Alinta Energy; the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group; the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia; the former deputy Liberal leader, Ms Bishop; and the former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, all agree on the NEG, when will the Prime Minister end the political dysfunction that has stalled much-needed investment and work with Labor to deliver a National Energy Guarantee?
We are always open to Labor working with us on energy policy as long as you drop your reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction target, as long as you drop your plan for a job-destroying carbon tax and as long as you work with us on an environmental policy that is economically responsible. We are always open to working with the Labor opposition in a bipartisan fashion in the public interest, but it'll be on the terms of doing the right thing by the Australian people and not imposing sacrifices on Australian families in a way that doesn't actually make any difference to global greenhouse gas emissions. Your policy agenda would harm the economy and would just shift emissions overseas where, for the same level of economic output, emissions would be higher. Your agenda will actually worsen global greenhouse gas emissions rather than improve them because you will just shift emissions from Australia overseas, where emissions will be higher for the same level of economic output. It is reckless policy and it is not a policy the Australian people should be supporting.
My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie, who is from my home state, the great state of Victoria and Australia's sporting capital. Minister, what are the benefits of the Liberal-National government's investment in sport from grassroots participation right through to high performance?
Thank you, Senator Hume, for your question and your strong support of sport in our home state. Around the world, we are known for our sporting success but also for our commitment to fair play and integrity. Sport has shaped our culture and identity as Australians, and it reflects our broader values of sportsmanship and respect for the umpire. Under our nation's first ever sport plan, Sport 2030, we now have a clear path on what we need to ensure that we build a more active Australia. We need more Australians to be more active more often. We can achieve sporting excellence and back grassroots community sports at the same time. We also need to safeguard the integrity of sport, and we need to strengthen and build a thriving Australian sport and recreation industry.
In the last budget, we committed over $230 million to sport, including a number of grants not only for grassroots sporting organisations around participation and infrastructure—and we'll be making announcements about those shortly—but also for high-performance sport. Significantly, we've invested in grassroots sports because they're developing the pathway for the next generation of elite athletes. It's incredibly important to invest in our elite athletes, as they inspire and motivate us all. That's why we have assisted our elite para-athletes and elite able-bodied athletes with an additional $50 million to assist them with their push to Tokyo over the next two years, where I know they'll all do us proud. This builds on our previous investment in high-performance sport to the tune of $100 million. That means a lot of tradies, teachers and coppers—who we've been able to increase the number of due to our strong economic management—are paying hard-earned taxes to ensure that the next generation of elite athletes will go on and do us proud. The strong economic position that our government has been able to deliver through more jobs and growth, has meant more investment in elite sport.
Senator Hume, a supplementary question?
Can the minister explain how women are benefitting from the government's strong investment in sport?
Yes, I can. It's a great era for women's sport at the moment, but what a fantastic week we had last week. The Southern Stars won the T20 World Cup, Steph Gilmore won her seventh world surfing championship and Lizzy Watson from the Melbourne Vixens won the Liz Ellis netballer of the year. But it's not just about elite athletes. Last week, I was very proud to announce the Women Leaders in Sport 2019 recipients, where our government is backing women in sport not just at the elite level but also who are umpires, coaches and administrators to grow their skills and build their leadership capacity. To go from coaching the under 13s at Leongatha, like Lisa Alexander did, to becoming the Australian Diamonds coach. From being president of the Yarrawonga Pigeons to becoming president of the West Coast Eagles. We need more women leaders in sport, and our government's backing them.
Senator Hume, a final supplementary question?
Minister, how is the government's strong economic and fiscal management enabling the economic benefits of our investment in sport to be realised? What role do these benefits play in helping the government to deliver essential services without raising taxes?
On this side, we want Australians to be healthier, happier and more connected, and sport delivers in spades. It makes not only a significant cultural contribution to our society but also, increasingly, an economic contribution: $83 billion worth of benefits—for every $1 invested, we get a $7 return. Importantly, there are 220,000 Australians employed in the sports industry, and that's more than in our mining industry. The flow-on benefits are absolutely undeniable. If you just think economically, the Australian Open summer of tennis in our home state—coming up again—contributed more than $280 million to the economy last year, with the 2017 final watched by over 900 million people around the world, which has a significant impact in flow-on tourism benefits. By backing increased participation and increased performance, our government's increased economic potential of sport is realised. I say get out to the cricket if you can— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the Prime Minister's intervention to save the preselection of the Liberal member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, and reports that the Prime Minister's staff and lieutenants were lobbying to save Mr Kelly, with one member of the New South Wales Liberal Party executive declaring the decision to save Mr Kelly had come after pressure from the PM. On what basis did Mr Morrison decide to intervene to save Mr Kelly's preselection?
The Prime Minister made it no secret that he supported the re-endorsement of four incumbent Liberal members of the House of Representatives in the great state of New South Wales. That is not something that is unprecedented in parties on either side of politics. I'm intrigued that the Labor Party has nothing better to ask about. Why don't you ask questions about the economy? Why don't you ask questions about jobs? Why don't you ask questions about our national security? Why don't you ask questions about health, education, immigration or the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Why are you so obsessed with our navel? Why are you so obsessed with navel gazing and our navel?
I mean, honestly! Ask questions about policy rather than questions about the internal Canberra bubble. Quite frankly, Mr Shorten has a track record of intervening in preselections all around the place. I wonder why he didn't intervene in the preselection of Emma Husar? What happened to Emma Husar? We know that Emma Husar turned on him quite spectacularly yesterday—
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
One could say that if you had a policy we could ask a question about it! But what I'm actually raising, Mr President, is a point of order on direct relevance. This is all very interesting, but has nothing to do with the question: why did he intervene to save Mr Kelly's preselection?
You've reminded the minister of the question. He's had some latitude; he has 48 seconds remaining to answer.
I answered that question directly. Senator Wong interjects so much that she doesn't listen to the answer. I encourage her to read the Hansard.
Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question.
I refer to Senator Molan, who, after being rolled in his preselection battle, has declared, 'I believe I will see the Prime Minister later this week.' Given the Prime Minister has intervened to save Craig Kelly, whose greatest achievement is destroying the government's energy policy, will Mr Morrison also intervene to save Senator Molan, a man who has served his own country?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Chanting is definitely out of order, even this close to Christmas!
The Prime Minister, of course, holds Senator Molan in very high regard, and I can confirm that the Prime Minister has regular meetings with Senator Molan. But I think the breaking news today is that the Labor Party is preparing to write a reference for Senator Molan, which I'm sure—
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Will Mr Morrison intervene to save Senator Molan? It's a simple question. It probably deserves an answer.
Senator, Senator Cormann was being directly relevant to the issue that was asked about.
Thank you very much, Mr President. I know that the Labor Party doesn't quite understand how democracy works, but Senator Molan is an endorsed Liberal candidate for the Senate at the next election. Of course, now that we've got Senator Wong and Senator Cameron and all the other Labor senators explaining what a great senator he is for the great state of New South Wales, I think you should join us in the campaign in New South Wales to ensure we get four Liberal-National senators elected at the next election. I am pleased that we are on a unity ticket between the Labor and the Liberal-National Parties to that effect. I'm waiting— (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! There are only two minutes to go; everyone can just take a breath. Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question.
Senator Molan has declared, 'All options are available to me'. Given Mr Morrison capitulated to Craig Kelly's threat to resign from the Liberal Party and tear down the government, what options should Senator Molan pursue to save himself?
I completely reject the premise of the question. The Prime Minister did not do what the senator is suggesting he did. Of course the Prime Minister supports all of his colleagues.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. How is the Liberal-National government working to deliver further development of the gas industry and ensure Australia's long-term gas supply, and how do the efforts help to create a strong economy and guarantee essential services without raising taxes?
I thank Senator Williams for that excellent question. This government stands shoulder to shoulder with our manufacturing industry in wanting to develop our resources sector to make sure we can continue to support high-paying jobs not just in our resources sector but also in the manufacturing sector, because so many of our jobs rely on having adequate supplies of energy—in particular, gas—to support those high paying jobs in manufacturing. To that end, it was great privilege to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Northern Territory government in the last month to help develop the Beetaloo Basin, one of the most exciting prospective gas basins in this country. To explain how important this is, this would be Australia's first major shale gas basin to be developed. You can see what shale oil and gas are doing for the United States and their manufacturing sector. It would be good to have some of that here as well in this country.
At the moment, the Beetaloo Basin is estimated to have more than 200 years supply of gas in it for this country. It's a huge amount of resource for us. It'll also possibly open up more export markets as well, and, most importantly, the Beetaloo Basin is possibly liquids-rich. There are certainly some liquids there. I'm looking at Senator Molan. I know he knows there is a significant problem in this country with adequate supplies of liquid fuels to support our national security interests as well as our broader economic interests as well. We should seek to develop these resources to support industry in Australia, to support jobs and to make sure that we can secure supplies of important energy, like oil, to Australians. We are working with the Northern Territory government, with the CSIRO and with our departmental officials to develop this in unison to make sure that we can provide benefits to the Northern Territory as well as to the broader Australian people.
Senator Williams, on a supplementary question.
I thank the minister, and I ask: what has the government already done to ensure the gas security of the east coast?
These efforts of ours, as I said, in unison with the Northern Territory government, are all about bringing more supply of gas to the market. But, in the short term, we have had an issue because new supplies of gas do take time to bring to production. Last year, given that we had a shortage of gas, this government introduced gas export controls for the first time in our nation's history through the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism. That has had a significant impact on gas markets to the benefit of Australian consumers and to the benefit of Australian businesses. Indeed, the average price of gas in February last year at Wallumbilla—which is a hub for gas in Australia—was $12.49 a gigajoule. Last month, the price at Wallumbilla averaged $9.95 a gigajoule—a 20 per cent reduction from last year. Now significant amounts of gas are flowing from Queensland to southern Australia, helping to alleviate that shortage and helping to take pressure off prices. But more needs to be done, particularly to bring on the supply of more gas.
Senator Williams, on a final supplementary question.
What more can be done to meet Australia's long-term gas needs and bring down prices for Australian households and businesses?
Increase supply—that's what we must do. It's pretty simple. If we want to bring the price of something down, we need to increase the supply of that in the marketplace. We need to increase supply. That is why we need all states and territories to develop their resources in a sensible way.
In the last decade, there've been 18 separate reviews into unconventional gas. All of those reviews—at least 18, that we know of—have concluded that unconventional gas can be developed with appropriate regulations. So it surprises me that the Victorian government are proposing to put in place a no-fracking ban in their constitution against all the science and against all the reviews. Apparently the Victorian constitution in the future will read something like, 'Equality before the law, habeas corpus, and no fracking.' That's going to be up there. We might have to translate it into Latin just so it can make some sort of sense, because this decision is potentially going to cost thousands of jobs in Victoria. This decision shows that the Labor Party does not support manufacturing and they do not support resources, and it's at a great cost to our country. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
by leave—I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to explain why the response to the order for the production of documents No. 1238 relating to live exports has not been provided.
I was not made aware of that before this was raised in the chamber. I can take that on notice. I do not have the information on that, given I'm representing the minister involved. I'll come back to the chamber when I have the information.
I seek leave to take note of that explanation—or nonexplanation.
Leave granted.
I actually did receive a letter this morning from Minister Canavan, which is a pretty useless piece of paper, which actually says that the requested documents have not been provided within the agreed deadline, but they will be provided as soon as possible. So, here today, the government continues to run interference for the cruel live export industry by failing to release the documents that this Senate demanded last week.
We know that you are just dragging your heels until this parliament finishes for the year, hoping that no-one notices. This is exactly on form for a government and an agriculture minister who cry nothing but crocodile tears for the tortured animals. Just admit it: you don't care. When the gruesome and shocking footage of the 2,400 sheep cooking to death aboard the AwassiExpress was seen, we were promised change. Since then, at every step, the government has walked away from even the few small changes they made. It seems it's back to business as usual. You've rolled over and increased stocking densities to cram sheep into spaces which would not even allow them to lie down or be able to easily access food or water.
You have approved live exports to the Middle East in the northern summer, and you have granted KLTT an export licence. KLTT was the consignee for all five voyages exposed on 60 Minutes this year and, along with Emanuel Exports, had responsibility for the animals on board. Since 2004, KLTT has been responsible for nearly half of the shipments from Australia, where over 1,000 sheep have perished. You say you're implementing some of the modest recommendations of the Moss review but just last week you advertised for a part-time inspector-general—a part-time inspector-general!—and just two additional people to replace the previous 21-person-strong animal welfare branch. This really makes a mockery of the Moss review recommendations. What a joke. How many more chances does this industry get?
The list of deaths and cruelty in the live export industry is very long. What happened aboard the Awassi Express wasn't an accident. It wasn't an exception. This is how the business model operates. In 1980, 40,000 sheep and a crew member died aboard the Farid Fares. In 1966, 67,000 sheep died aboard the Uniceb. In 1999, 800 cattle died on the Temburong. In 2003, 5,500 sheep died on the MV Cormo Express; 4,000 sheep dead aboard the Bader III in 2014; in 2017, 3,000 dead aboard the Al Messilah. And these are just the ones we know about. Just last week, we found out that 9,227 sheep and 3,695 cattle on the MV Bahijah were subject to torturous heat stress for eight straight days, and it is just a matter of time before the next huge mortality event.
There have been more than a dozen reforms, reviews or inquiries since this industry started, and still the cruelty continues. Let's not pretend that the industry hasn't seen this coming. Over the weekend there was a very interesting article by Nick Butterly in the West Australian. It shows that the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council commissioned a study in 2013 into community attitudes to live export, with the paper warning that political and public support for the industry was fast disappearing.
The live export industry know the writing is on the wall to end the cruelty. They know, yet they've continued business as usual. Why? It's because they know their mates in the government will turn a blind eye, as they have. Well, we are calling you out. My bill to end the worst aspects of the live export trade has passed the Senate. We know a majority of crossbenchers support an end to live export. The clock is well and truly ticking. You know exactly what you are defending. Enough is enough. You may be able to dodge and weave and obfuscate to deny the Senate what it has asked for, but we won't forget. The people out there won't forget. We have crossed the tipping point, with the majority of Australians thoroughly rejecting the cruelty of live export. We won't stop until the cruel live export industry is consigned to the dustbin of history.
Question agreed to.
I rise to give further information relating to a question I took on notice in question time yesterday from Senator Hanson which related to an order to produce documents stemming from 11 December 2013 and a claim by Senator Hanson that that order had not been met. I'd refer the Senate and Senator Hanson, in particular, to a 12 December 2013 letter to the President of the Senate that was tabled in that regard, noted and recorded at page 1,728 of Hansard at that time. The letter outlines why the government is not in a position to comply with the order of the Senate. It states clearly: 'Unilateral disclosure of information before signature or before all parties would have otherwise agreed to the release of the approved text would be prejudicial to Australia's international relations. Specifically, a disclosure of this information would be in breach of relevant commitments made to Australia's partners in negotiations. This is consistent with normal practice in negotiating international treaties. Negotiating text is dynamic, changes regularly and has no binding status.'
The letter also noted that: 'Pre-emptive and unilateral release of such confidential information could damage Australia's standing as a negotiating partner, both in respect to current processes and potential future processes. Australia will be in a position to publicly release FTA texts when all parties agree to do so, not before. Accordingly, and consistent with longstanding Senate conventions, the government claims public interest immunity in relation to the documents covered by this order. The Senate can be assured that, once the text of trade agreements is agreed between parties, but before it is ratified by the Australian government, it will be made public and it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the well-established review processes through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.' That is of course exactly what has occurred in relation to each and every trade agreement that this government has brought to fruition.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Watt and Kitching today relating to a party meeting and to energy policy.
Those questions related to the extraordinary late-night move last night of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to change the rules to make sure that they don't have to go through yet another leadership change of the kind that we saw recently—not that long ago—when Prime Minister Turnbull knocked off Prime Minister Abbott.
I think all of us were surprised when we read last night that an urgent meeting of the Liberal Party had been called, and there was lots of speculation about what that might have been about. But I suppose anyone who has been watching federal politics any time recently would know that an urgent, unplanned, extraordinary meeting of the Liberal Party would be called for the only topic that the Liberal Party seem capable of talking about at the moment—and that is themselves and their leadership. Everyone in this place knows that there are many, many challenges that this country faces such as the fact that, under this government, wages do not rise and do not keep pace with the increases in profits that we keep seeing going to big business, the natural allies of this government. That would be a topic that I would have thought it worth this government calling an urgent partyroom meeting over. But they never want to talk about that.
I suppose, to give them credit, they have called a number of urgent partyroom meetings to talk about energy policy. They had a partyroom meeting when they settled on the Clean Energy Target. Then they had a partyroom meeting when they ditched the Clean Energy Target. They had a partyroom meeting when they settled on the emissions intensity scheme and another partyroom meeting when they got rid of the emissions intensity scheme. More recently, they had a partyroom meeting when former Prime Minister Turnbull actually got support from his party room for the National Energy Guarantee. It actually got through their party room. Despite that, of course, a partyroom meeting had to be called not long after that to kill off something which they'd voted for not that long before. That reflects the level of chaos that we continue to see from this government, on energy policy in particular, but, really, on every matter that it deals with.
So nothing says stability like calling an urgent, unplanned, extraordinary meeting of your party at 9 o'clock at night on a sitting night. That's perfectly normal—that's how things should be run in any major political party. That's certainly how they're run in the Liberal Party. Not only was this meeting called at very short notice, late at night on a sitting night, but we had the laughable picture of senators running in and out of the meeting to come to divisions in here and to fill quorums in the chamber while their own legislation was being debated. It was more chaos from this government, something that we have become used to.
There is only one reason I can think of for why the Prime Minister was so keen to move this rule change early in the sitting week. You can imagine him sitting with Senator Cormann on the big plane coming back from Argentina, through the choppy clouds, thinking about what they were going to do in the sitting week and how they were going to make it through. Someone obviously had the brainwave to change the rules for the leadership, to make sure that nothing could happen again. I think we were all interested to note that one of the leadership pretenders for the future, and the past, Ms Bishop, was noticeably very late in getting to that meeting. I do wonder whether anyone bothered to tell Ms Bishop that this meeting was being held to change the leadership rules that she may have a very great interest in—certainly, after the election and, potentially, even beforehand. But, sadly for Ms Bishop, her own leadership aspirations seem to be delayed again by the boys in the Liberal Party. And now they've made it that little bit harder for her to ever reach the top job, which we all know that she wants to do.
Turning to other matters in the limited time I have left: it was good to see another contribution from the former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, today on the National Energy Guarantee. He said that he has strongly encouraged his colleagues to work together to revive the National Energy Guarantee:
It was a vital piece of economic policy. It had strong support, and none stronger I might say than the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer.
It is really sad when you look over at the Liberal Party: it seems to be that anyone who ever bothered to try to come up with a policy to deal with energy prices or a policy to deal with climate change—most recently, the NEG and anyone who supports the NEG—has no place left in the Liberal Party. Mr Turnbull was a supporter of the NEG. Of course, they got rid of him. They knocked him out of parliament altogether. Ms Bishop has been a supporter of the NEG and, of course, she was sent back to the backbench. And Julia Banks, the member for Chisholm, was a supporter of the NEG and she decided there was no place left for her in the Liberal Party.
The Liberals are totally focused on themselves. They call urgent, unplanned meetings in the middle of the night to change their rules but are never about the issues that Australians care about. (Time expired)
It's very touching that the Australian Labor Party is so concerned about the internal events of the Liberal Party. But can I tell Senator Watt something? The Australian people are more concerned about energy prices. They're more concerned about jobs and jobs growth for the future. What I would say to Senator Watt is this: you can roll out Mr Turnbull, and we can respond by rolling out Mr Latham or Mr Rudd. We can talk about the Labor Party's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was the 'greatest moral challenge of our time' until the opinion polls turned and then the Labor Party, including the vast majority of those sitting in this chamber, discarded their policy like a soiled tissue—of no value. There was no thought given; it was just dismissed.
Well, we can go tit for tat on that. But do you know what? Does that create one extra job for the Australian people? No. Does it decrease their energy prices? No. But this morning, the Liberal-National party room put through its meeting a policy to ensure the divestiture of big energy companies which are gaming the system—something Labor will not do because they're on the side of the big energy companies, whereas we in the coalition are on the side of the consumers, the farmers, the small-business people and the pensioners. And that is where we as a government are getting on with policy.
When we in opposition announced that in the first five years we would seek to help create one million jobs, the Labor Party scoffed. What we have we done? We have delivered the one million jobs before time, and now it is well and truly over one million jobs. Today there are fewer adults on welfare than in the last, I think, 15 or 20 years. That's another good not only economic indicator but also fantastic social indicator, showing that we are getting more of our fellow Australians engaged in the mainstream economy, where they can be self-reliant, where they have the dignity of a job, and where the young people, in particular, are engaging in the economy, where there is jobs growth and an opportunity for their future. They're the things that we as a government are delivering on for the Australian people. That's what we were elected to do. That is what we are doing. That is what we are delivering.
The Australian Labor Party, devoid of any policy other than to destroy the economy, seek to play their political games, as was witnessed in question time today in this Senate. What did we see? We saw silly questions about what Mr Turnbull may or may not have said. The Australian people are over it. What they want is policy and policy delivery. What I say to the Australian people is: when the Labor Party engage in such immature politics, what they're really doing is asking you not to look at their policies. The Labor Party has a policy that would destroy the Australian economy: their 45 per cent or now 50 per cent, I think, Renewable Energy Target. This is a target that would destroy household budgets, small businesses and manufacturing.
They would have made the $400 million payment to the International Climate Fund with what? With borrowed money. Where from? From China. And guess where we get our money from to fund the deficit from China, and guess who was trying to hook into that international climate change fund? None other than China. So the Labor Party economic policy is: borrow money from China to pay it into an international fund, to pay it back to China so we can then pay interest to China. That is the way the Australian Labor Party would wreck our economy.
We know that Mr Shorten is union bred, union led and union fed. He would do the bidding of the militant CFMMEU. He would do the bidding of Sally McManus and the ACTU. That would take us back, way beyond what Mr Hawke and Mr Keating did as prime ministers to ensure that we became a modern economy. They are now, today, repudiating the policies of Hawke and Keating and going way back. We, on this side, are focused on delivering for the Australian people, for jobs and growth. (Time expired)
I, too, rise to take note of Senator Cormann's answer to questions from Senator Kitching and Senator Watt. I listened very carefully to the answer, and I listened carefully to some of the media commentary and to Senator Cormann's words on this. He said that the executive had a meeting. The ministry had a meeting. Then they instructed the whips to get the members of the Liberal Party together for a meeting to consider the proposal. Once again, it was top down. It was driven at the executive level, the leadership level, and then it spread to the ministry. Then the whips were instructed to gather the troops together.
It was an unscheduled meeting—clearly, there are party room meetings on a regular basis during sitting weeks—to deal with what? We know that those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Go back to the Hon. Tony Abbott, who was replaced under invidious circumstances by the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull. The Hon. Tony Abbott set about undermining the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull—until he'd had enough of it. The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull used existing rules, and he introduced his own rule. He said: 'Unless I see 43 signatures, there'll be no spill.' I think the Liberal Party rules at that stage were that a reasonable number of backbenchers and/or members of the Liberal Party could instigate a spill, but the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull introduced a new rule, which was '43 signatures or I'm gone'. Then we saw the inability of some people to get to the count of 43, and we saw Prime Minister Morrison replace the candidate the Hon. Peter Dutton.
In the electorate, this is probably the question that I get wherever I go: what happened to Malcolm Turnbull; why did he have to go? No-one's clearly and concisely explained that, other than in very procedural terms. They say, 'It's a gift of the coalition party room or the Liberal party room,' and, 'You need to command the support of your fellow members of parliament.' That's all true, but the people who thought—quite wrongly, really, because they probably didn't live in Wentworth—that they'd voted for the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull are not satisfied with that. If you listen carefully to the federal MPs in the Victorian election, when they handed out in their various state electorates, they were met with chilling, deathly silence and cold stares. The Liberal Party have repeated every mistake and added a few to the book of mistakes of the last 10 years. They've added a few and invented a few of their own, and they're going down an inexorable path of decimation.
It doesn't actually apply to Prime Minister Morrison. It would only apply if he gets elected whenever he calls the next election, so you think: 'Why would he choose to call an urgent meeting a couple of days prior to the end of the sitting year? Maybe he's decided to have an election on 27 January? Maybe he's not going to come back for his budget? Maybe things are going to get so bad that he might just pull the pin and say, "Look, we're going to an election"?' If there is an election, at least he can campaign and say, 'If you elect me as Prime Minister, I guarantee I'll be there for the whole term because of this three-quarter rule.' It appears to be, once again—like most of the things they have done—policy on the run meant to appease someone somewhere. It's not evident to the electorate, and it's probably not going to be rewarded by the electorate.
I don't think this rule is going to have a chance to be enacted or to be of any use to the Liberal Party for at least three years, if not six years or nine years. I think the size of their impending electoral disaster is such that the rule will just simply dissolve into nothing, because it is unlikely they'll need it in the 46th parliament, and it's very unlikely, in my view, they'll need it in the 47th parliament because they won't be in government the way they're going. They've changed their Prime Ministers like some people change their shirts. They're putting these rules in very late in the piece—in the last couple of days. The rules won't help you, and they appear to be impenetrable. No-one can really understand what the Liberal Party are doing, and there'll be no good coming out of this rule change.
Sometimes five minutes in the Australian Senate is longer than five minutes everywhere else in the country, and what we just saw was a very torturous five minutes from Senator Gallacher, but I thank you for your effort! What we had from Senator Watt was an application form. Senator Watt was trying to apply to join the cross bench. There's no-one in this place who was trying to announce a conspiracy theory about the events of yesterday in the coalition more than Senator Watt. He got an important fact wrong. He said the meeting started at 9 pm. It started at 7.30 pm—a very reasonable time for coalition party meetings to occur on a Monday. It's not a surprise. They happen more frequently than people might know about. So Senator Watt, in an effort to try and create a conspiracy where there is no conspiracy, did himself great detriment. But, to be fair to Senator Watt, he is a new senator and he is from Queensland, so we shouldn't be too harsh!
There's been a lot of talk this afternoon about former Prime Ministers. We've heard talk about former Prime Minister Abbott; we've heard talk about former Prime Minister Turnbull. We even had Senator Abetz talking about former Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating. I will come back in a moment to what Paul Keating has had to say about Bill Shorten, because that is very, very revealing.
There is a powerful reason why senators on the opposite side want to talk about the affairs of the Liberal Party that took place last night. I might just reflect on those briefly. The reason Labor senators want to talk about the events of last night is that they want to hide from the fact, from the scrutiny, of what their policies might mean for the Australian economy and for Australian families and businesses.
What happened last night? The Liberal Party took a very sensible decision. It decided to reflect back to the Australian people what the Australian people have been asking for—that is, that the Australian people want to have the first and final decisions when it comes to electing Prime Ministers. So Scott Morrison with his leadership team and with the whips, of which I am one, made a decision to reflect back to the Australian community exactly what they want. There is no doubt that that will bring about some stability.
People will not be surprised to learn that, with Senator Stoker, I am someone who had some caution, some trepidation, about that. I am someone who is concerned about, or interested in, the long-term consequences of these sorts of rule changes for our party. But the facts are these: there was a discussion and a consensus was reached. Importantly, I think, over the medium term that will be taken as a sign by many in the community that the coalition is interested in returning to stability. My concerns about the rule change I have shared with my colleagues. There is no need to enunciate them in this place any further.
Let's talk about Labor for a brief moment. What you will not hear from Senator Kitching, if she makes a contribution shortly, and what you will not hear from Senator Keneally, if she makes a contribution shortly, is their plan for tax increases. Senator Cormann was quite right in question time today when he said Australians will face a very clear choice at the next election. They will face a choice between Scott Morrison, and his plan for a stronger economy, and Bill Shorten, and his plan for a weaker economy. You can't grow the economy if you are going to increase taxes in the way that Labor senators like Senator Keneally from New South Wales want to increase taxes.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
There we go! Senator Keneally doesn't want to talk about taxes. Senator Keneally, what are Labor's seven deadly taxes? There is a $70 billion wage tax, to name one; a $7 billion budget repair levy, to name a second; new taxes on property, worth $29 billion, to name a third; new taxes for retirees, to name a fourth; a superannuation tax, to name a fifth; new taxes on family businesses, to name a sixth; and, of course, increased taxes on electricity.
You're not safe under Labor. If you're concerned about economic growth, if you want to give families and businesses some confidence in the future, the choice in May next year—between Scott Morrison and the coalition government and Bill Shorten and a Labor government—is stark. As a result of the decision taken by Liberals last night, if you elect Scott Morrison you will get Scott Morrison for the term of the next government. And I'll be voting for Scott Morrison, just to be very clear about that.
I agree that time can be quite an elastic concept in the Senate, but I also love that what might be tax policy is also elastic. Let's have a look at what has happened today under this Liberal government. There's been an announcement that company profits are six times wages growth. So Australians who are struggling to keep up with the cost of living—there would be many such people, perhaps, observing this chamber today—who might be having some trouble keeping up with the cost of living that has occurred under this coalition government, which would have people believe that they are good economic managers, should know it has doubled federal government debt, on Senator Cormann's watch, to over $500 billion. That's where he's up to. Remember, the government voted with the Greens to remove the debt ceiling: 'We are responsible economic managers, so we'll remove the debt ceiling. You don't need to worry about us at all.' What did they do? They doubled federal government debt. At some point, someone is going to have to pay that back.
I want to take note of the answers given by Senator Cormann to questions on the urgent and unplanned Liberal party room meeting last night. Since the rabble of the August coup—coup week, as we like to call it—Prime Minister Morrison has presented himself as some sort of reluctant leader, like he was Moses leading the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt. However, day by day it becomes clearer and clearer that he is actually more Niccolo Machiavelli in a baseball cap—that's what he is. He was slowly biding his time, waiting for his chance to Steven Bradbury the prime ministership—and, lo, he has succeeded.
During last month's Q&A appearance, Mr Turnbull slyly refused to answer whether Prime Minister Morrison had been acting in good faith during the leadership debacle. He's no longer holding back, and now we have the full display of the former Prime Minister telling us what he really thinks—not just on personalities in the Liberal Party but also, today, on energy policy. I'm sure he has been a great help to everyone. Yesterday it was reported that he told the New South Wales Liberal state executive that the current Prime Minister was delaying the election to keep his—I won't use the word he used—bottom in C1, the prime ministerial vehicle. But if Prime Minister Morrison was such a loyal deputy and believes these new changes are necessary, why didn't he advocate for them when Mr Turnbull was Prime Minister? Why did he previously say that regulating for culture is never effective?
As I say, time is an elastic concept in here. Let's go to why Senator Cormann said on ABC breakfast TV just this morning—that's many hours ago, so quite a long time ago for the government—'Obviously, we have been thinking about this for some time.' Now, how would one define 'some time'? If you were from the government, you would define it as, as he then goes on to say: 'The leadership group has been talking about this proposal last week.' As Harold Wilson, a twice-serving British Prime Minister, said, 'A week is a long time in politics,' but a week is an especially long time in politics for this government. But then Senator Cormann went on—my favourite part of his interview this morning—to say, 'We are very keen to ensure that people across Australia can have confidence that, if they elect Scott Morrison as Prime Minister at the next election, Scott Morrison will be the Prime Minister all the way through to the subsequent election.' I mean, you wouldn't believe these people. Why wouldn't you believe them? Because they have not actually told the truth about policy or about their own leadership machinations. We have not had a word of truth from them for some time.
There is perhaps a temptation for some to idealise the fallen Prime Minister and his virtue-signalling clan. He was a terrible Prime Minister. He has been a terrible former Prime Minister. He's only being exceeded in his terribleness by the current Prime Minister. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison maladministration has been a team effort that has doubled federal government debt in five years, a team effort that has allowed wages to flatline while company profits have grown six times faster and a team effort that has allowed energy policy to occupy every position on the political spectrum. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
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 Hanson-Young today relating to climate change.
I rise to take note of the answers given to me by Senator Cormann in relation to my questions relating to Australia's position in the COP24. Nations right around the world are currently meeting to discuss how we work together across the globe to get serious action on global warming. We know that, overnight, Sir David Attenborough put a very, very strong call out to all of us as leaders in our communities and as parliamentarians—that we can't keep putting action on climate change to one side. He said that this is the biggest threat facing civilisation. These are the words of David Attenborough, backed up by the science of the IPCC. All of those who are meeting in Poland at the COP 24 are working extremely hard to ensure that we implement not just the Paris targets but that we do whatever it takes to make sure we can keep global temperature rises to 1½ degrees or below, because that's what the scientists are telling us we need to do.
Of course, back here at home we've heard from the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, today, absolutely blasting his colleagues here in Canberra for a total lack of leadership and also for an avid campaign to destroy not just his leadership but effective action on climate change. And why, you may ask, Mr President? Well, the former Prime Minister said it well:
There is a significant percentage of Coalition members who do not believe climate change is real.
Imagine: here we are, the Australian parliament. We have the government of the country, and a significant percentage of them don't even believe in science. They don't accept the science. Of course, these are the people who work every day to undermine real climate action in this country. They're prepared to roll Prime Minister after Prime Minister because they don't want any type of transition away from fossil fuels. This is not because they necessarily care that much about fossil fuels, but they are absolute madmen and denialists.
There is, of course, the added pressure, I would imagine, on some of those members in the coalition as to what their donors might think about a reasonable climate change policy—a policy that drove down emissions and transitioned away from coal and other fossil fuels. We know that individuals like Gina Rinehart, for example, like signing cheques to the National Party. She doesn't do that because she's just a nice person; it's because she wants them to throw roadblock after roadblock in the way of genuine and real action on climate change.
Then, of course, there is the current Prime Minister himself, who, famously, came into the House of Representatives with his pet rock—his lump of coal.
It wasn't a rock—it was a lump of coal.
It was his lump of coal; his pet rock—his favourite piece of symbolism of where, apparently, the heart and soul of the coalition lies.
The former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has belled the cat. The reason he got kicked out of the job was not because of Newspoll and was not because of other policies: it was all because of climate change. The climate change deniers still rule the roost in the coalition. Those who don't believe in science and who would prefer to put their heads in the sand live in denial while the rest of the world is saying, 'We've got to get on with it, because otherwise the planet is going to fry.'
Question agreed to.
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of the sittings:
Future Drought Fund Bill 2018; and
Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2018.
I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave for the statement to be incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2018 SPRING SITTINGS
Future Drought Fund Bill
Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill
Purpose of the Bills
The Future Drought Fund Bill will establish the Future Drought Fund (the Fund), the Future Drought Fund Special Account and the Agriculture Future Drought Resilience Special Account to fund initiatives which enhance future drought resilience, preparedness and response across regional Australia.
The Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill would make consequential amendments to a range of legislation including the Future Fund Act 2006 and the Nation-building Funds Act 2008 as a result of the Future Drought Fund Bill.
Uncommitted funds currently in the Building Australia Fund, approximately $3.9 billion, would be transferred to the fund on establishment. By 2028-29 it is expected that the fund would grow to approximately $5.0 billion through reinvestment of net earnings (less disbursements). The fund would provide disbursements of $100 million each financial year from 1 July 2020.
The fund would be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians.
Reasons for Urgency
Introduction and passage of the bills in the 2018 Spring sittings is necessary to ensure that there are earnings on the capital in the fund available to be drawn down from 1 July 2020, and that consequential amendments are made to relevant legislation at the same time as establishment of the Future Drought Fund.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance and the Public Service).
I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 5 December 2018 proposing the disallowance of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Regulations 2018.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.
I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 1305 standing in my name.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That—
(a) the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 be considered on Wednesday, 5 December 2018 from 11 am to 12.35 pm, at time allotted for consideration of government business;
(b) if, by 12.35 pm the bill has not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate;
(c) paragraph (b) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and
(d) the provisions of standing order 115(3) shall not apply to the bill so that the bill may be further considered even if it has been referred to a standing or select committee for inquiry and report.
I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I indicate on behalf of the government that we will be supporting this motion as amended and that the Prime Minister has reached out to the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that we find a reasonable way forward and a reasonable compromise to help facilitate what the Prime Minister has indicated he would like to see facilitated, and that is to remove discrimination against students before the end of the parliamentary sitting year. We look forward to genuine and good faith engagement with the opposition and also with others in the parliament in the intervening period. On that basis, we will support this motion proceeding.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) That the Senate:
(a) notes that formal business is taking up a significant amount of time each sitting week; and
(b) accepts that the right of senators to move business of the Senate motions, including motions for the disallowance of legislative instruments and to refer matters to standing committees, should be unrestricted.
(2) That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in February 2019:
That the standing orders relating to the routine of business be reviewed to assess whether a limit should apply to the consideration of formal motions, or other procedural changes be made to limit the time taken for the consideration of formal motions in a sitting week.
Question agreed to.
I ask that government business notice of motion No. 1 relating to the consideration of legislation be taken as formal.
Is there any objection? Senator Siewert.
Mr President, we have different views on different bills. Could I ask you to put the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 separately to the others listed in the motion?
You'd like the last bill listed, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018, put separately?
Yes.
Is leave granted for this motion to be taken as formal on those conditions? Leave is granted.
I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018
Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018
Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018.
The question is that, in relation to the first five bills listed, government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that, in relation to the last bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018, government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to sex discrimination and marriage, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have a second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
The speech read as follows—
The document was unavailable at the time of publishing
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Dodson, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) this is the 20th year of operation of Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas network, since the first Indigenous Protected Area in Australia was designated at Nantawarrina in South Australia,
(ii) Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas network is a world-leading model that represents almost half of all Australia's terrestrial protected areas at 68 million hectares and growing,
(iii) the everyday work in Indigenous Protected Areas is delivered by Indigenous Rangers, an initiative primarily funded by the Federal Government,
(iv) Indigenous Protected Areas provide crucial and necessary land and sea management, protecting against environmental threats, such as destructive wildfires, feral animals and invasive weeds,
(v) Indigenous Protected Areas, managed by Indigenous Rangers, deliver up to three dollars for every one dollar spent, as outlined in a report commissioned by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
(vi) Indigenous Rangers work provides significant social and cultural benefits to local communities, and
(vii) Indigenous Protected Areas and Indigenous Rangers are a contemporary expression of the unbroken and ancient connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to this land; and
(b) urges the Federal Government to acknowledge the significant cultural and environmental significance of Indigenous Rangers and Indigenous Protected Areas, and to commit to further expanding these valuable programmes.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Liberal-National coalition government has invested around $180 million over 10 years in Indigenous Protected Areas as part of our expanded investment in Indigenous ranger programs. These programs support more than 2,900 jobs for Indigenous Australians. It is the Liberal-National coalition government that established the Indigenous ranger program and it is the Liberal-National coalition that is delivering record investment in this important program.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator O'Neill, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the Franchising Code of Conduct and Oil Code of Conduct be extended to 14 February 2019.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles be extended to 30 January 2019.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 2018 marks the 150th anniversary of The Royal Commonwealth Society, the oldest civil society organisation devoted to the modern Commonwealth,
(ii) since its establishment, The Royal Commonwealth Society has worked to improve the lives and prospects of Commonwealth citizens across the world, and
(iii) the 2018 Commonwealth theme, 'Towards a Common Future', renews the commitment to build on the individual and collective strengths of all member countries to respond to global challenges, and deliver a more prosperous, secure, sustainable and fair future for all our citizens, particularly our young people; and
(b) reaffirms Australia's support for the Charter of the Commonwealth, signed by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, in 2013, which states that "We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds".
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Ruston, Leyonhjelm and O'Sullivan, move:
That the Senate notes that:
(a) the gross value of Australian domestic pork production exceeds $1 billion – the pork industry supports more than 36,000 full-time equivalent jobs;
(b) each Australian is consuming on average 27 kilograms of pork annually, comprising 11 kilograms of fresh pork and 15 kilograms of processed products, such as ham, bacon and smallgoods;
(c) the drought has forced up the cost of grain for pig feed which has placed enormous pressure on Australia's pig farmers; and
(d) to help our own pig farmers, shoppers should look for the pink 'Australian Pork' logo to ensure it is Australian ham and pork on their fork this Christmas.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Di Natale, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, over 10% of the population have used ecstasy and 9% have used cocaine at least once in their lives – in the past 12 months, 2.2% of Australians have used ecstasy and 2.5% have used cocaine,
(ii) that research and evaluations of international pill testing initiatives demonstrates that pill testing services:
(A) link people with health services,
(B) give health services critical information about what has been consumed, and
(C) give people more information about what is in the pills that they are taking than they otherwise have access to,
(iii) the need for all parties and independent members of the Australian Parliament to join with the Australian Greens to support a comprehensive and realistic plan to implement pill testing, both at festivals and in the community, and
(iv) that the skills and expertise exist within the Australian medical and drug and alcohol communities to deliver pill testing services; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) develop and implement a pill testing policy before the summer festival season,
(ii) work with community groups and the Australian Capital Territory Government to implement existing models which demonstrably have worked and helped save lives, and
(iii) if the above action is not taken, to explain to the loved ones of people who have died or been injured their justification for not following the evidence and protecting people.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian government does not support the use of illicit drugs and does not support pill testing, as it would imply that illicit drugs are safe. All illicit drug use contains inherent risks and even taking an known substance can result in unintended harm. It is important to note that pill testing may not be able to identify all components in illicit substances or the concentration of illicit substances and does not take into account any underlying health conditions a person may have or interactions with any other substances or medication a person may have taken.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor has been saddened by the tragic deaths of Australians at festivals in recent years. We hope that everyone who attends a music festival this summer stays safe and well. Labor is committed to drug policies that complement law enforcement with harm minimisation, early intervention and effective treatment. That said, this motion is a typical Greens party stunt. The Greens party knows that this issue, like most criminal law, rests with state and territory governments, including the Labor government here in the ACT, which has implemented a pill-testing trial. Instead of supporting stunts in the Senate, federal Labor will continue to monitor the actions of states and territories in this regard. Labor will oppose this motion.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
For years I was opposed to safe injecting rooms. For years I was opposed to pill testing. In recent times I've come around to believing in safe injecting rooms. They now have one in Melbourne as well as in Sydney, and they have saved lives—hundreds of lives, apparently. With some of the recent festivals, very dangerous materials have been found in drugs and some youngsters' lives have been saved. You may say, 'If you take an illegal substance, that's your call and that's your problem; you're meant to be an adult,' but some kids are being exploited. I'm sadly going to oppose the motion, because, unfortunately, some of the language that the Greens use at times I don't agree with. I will try to get this changed. We will get together eventually, but on this one I'll be voting with the government and the opposition.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
We have the festival season rapidly approaching, so we have a time limit here. We can choose to follow what the evidence tells us, and the evidence tells us that when we have pill testing we save people's lives, and that when we don't use it people die. It's a pretty simple proposition. It's a pretty simple equation. We have a whole range of experts, community groups and stakeholders who are saying they are prepared to provide this service for the community so that they can help save people's lives. It doesn't matter what we say in this chamber. We can tell people to stop using these substances and they won't listen to us. They'll continue to make this choice. So the question for us is: should they pay for it with their lives? That is the choice right now. We say no. We say young people occasionally make risky choices and it's up to us as policymakers to ensure that we look after them, because we don't want to be explaining to the parents of families who lose their children that we had a chance to save them and we squibbed it.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I just want to make a brief statement to clarify for the people listening at home that the festival season which Senator Di Natale referred to is actually one of our most significant cultural and religious festivals, which is called Christmas. It is when Christian people celebrate the birth of the person they regard shone a light and demonstrated and indicated to the world the best possible way to live. So dismissing such a significant cultural event as part of the festival season to justify drug taking and pill testing is completely, I think, undermining of our cultural and social mores and our traditions. I'd like to stand up and defend them.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
The question is that motion No. 1285 be agreed to.
I withdraw business of the Senate No. 2 standing in my name.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Coalition Government has confirmed that they will not offer voluntary buybacks for the residents surrounding the RAAF base at Williamtown in New South Wales who are affected by PFAS contamination,
(ii) the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has also voted with the Coalition Government in the Senate against voluntary buybacks for the residents surrounding the RAAF base at Williamtown who are affected by PFAS contamination,
(iii) those residents affected by the PFAS contamination coming from the RAAF Base at Williamtown reside in the Federal electorate of Paterson, which is held by the ALP by more than 10% (considered a safe Labor seat),
(iv) the ALP recently promised $15 billion dollars for their renewable energy policy, if elected at the next federal election, and
(v) the ALP promised $343 million of funding during the 'super Saturday' by-election campaigns earlier this year, including $25 million alone for an AFL team in Tasmania; and
(b) calls on the ALP to announce their official policy of voluntary buybacks for the residents surrounding the RAAF base at Williamtown who are affected by PFAS contamination before Christmas 2018. (general business notice of motion no. 1286)
The question is that motion No. 1286 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the buying power of Newstart has barely changed since 1994-95, while the buying power of the median household disposable income has increased 55% during the same period,
(ii) since 2006, successive governments have made cuts to income support for sole parents moving them onto Newstart when their youngest child turns 8,
(iii) the ACOSS and UNSW Poverty in Australia 2018 report revealed that the poverty rate for people on Newstart has risen by 17% in the last 16 years, and
(iv) the cumulative effect of the policy changes since 2006 has left sole parents still on Parenting Payment Single, with two younger children, nearly $85 a fortnight worse off; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to increase Newstart and to reverse the policy changes that have left sole parents worse off. (general business notice of motion no. 1300)
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The best form of welfare is a job. The Liberal-National coalition has created more than 1.1 million jobs since coming to government. The government will continue to promote policies which improve employment opportunities for those on Newstart and youth allowance as well as continue to index those payments twice a year.
The question is that motion No. 1300 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate agrees that the Adani Carmichael coalmine should not go ahead.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Liberal-National coalition government supports the development of the Adani Carmichael mine and further development of the Galilee Basin under the robust environmental laws that we have. The development of the Galilee basin will deliver up to 15,000 jobs and add billions of dollars to the Queensland economy. The traditional owners of the land voted 294 to one in favour of the development of the Carmichael mine. The authorisation by traditional owners of this project has been upheld by the Federal Court against the challenge to its decision. We should respect the wishes of these traditional owners.
The question is that motion No. 1303 be agreed to.
At the request of Senators Siewert and Cameron, I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2019:
ParentsNext, including its trial and subsequent broader rollout, with particular reference to:
(a) the aims of ParentsNext, and the extent to which those aims are appropriate, having regard to the interests of participating parents, their children, and the community;
(b) the design and implementation of ParentsNext, including, without limitation:
(i) the appropriateness of eligibility for compulsory and voluntary participation,
(ii) the protocol for providers' conduct of Capability Interviews with participants,
(iii) the design of participation plans, including the range of economic and social participation requirements,
(iv) the selection of ParentsNext providers,
(v) the interaction between ParentsNext, business, education and training providers, and health, community and social services,
(vi) the effectiveness of the communication between:
(A) participants,
(B) the Department of Jobs and Small Business,
(C) Centrelink, and
(D) ParentsNext providers,
(vii) the measures, if any, in place to avoid causing risk or harm to vulnerable participants and their children, including participants and children who are victims and/or survivors of family violence,
(viii) the appropriateness of the aspects of the program specifically aimed at communities with high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, and the appropriateness of the broader program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents outside target communities,
(ix) the effectiveness of the program in supporting the long-term wellbeing of parents and children, and the longer term skills and earning capacity of parents, and
(x) best practice pre-employment programs for parents;
(c) the appropriateness of the application of the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF) to ParentsNext, and the impact of the TCF on participants;
(d) the oversight of ParentsNext, including:
(i) the oversight of determinations of non-compliance, and
(ii) the fairness and efficiency of any complaint handling processes, including protocols around changing providers; and
(e) any other related matters the committee considers relevant.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 3 December 2018 was the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and was an important moment to recognize the four million disabled Australians and the contribution they make to society,
(ii) for the first time, people with disability held their own National Awards for Disability Leadership,
(iii) despite the hard-won progress of the disability rights movement, disabled Australians continue to be subjected to discrimination and are routinely denied the right guaranteed to them under international law,
(iv) this discrimination creates and sustains the barriers to employment, education, transport, social and political participation experienced by disabled Australians, and most concerningly manifests itself in horrific violence, abuse and neglect to which they are subjected, and
(v) in a three-month period alone, from July to September of this year, over 184 incidents of abuse and neglect were reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government and the Opposition to support the immediate establishment of a royal commission to investigate violence, abuse and neglect of disabled people.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government continues to support and recognise the significant contribution of Australians with disability. The government is also engaging in real, immediate and substantial reform to prevent the abuse and neglect of people with disability as we roll out the NDIS—the most significant social reform to improve choice and control for people with disability in the services they receive. The government is providing $209 million over four years to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which will address issues raised in the recent inquiries, replacing a complex and fragmented system of quality and safeguards in each state and territory with a single, nationally consistent approach under the NDIS.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor supports this motion and welcomes the decision by the Greens to follow the Australian Labor Party in recognising the importance of a standalone royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
People with disability have experienced abuse at unacceptably high rates for far too long. Only last month the ABS released new statistics showing that young people with disabilities or long-term conditions experience sexual harassment at a rate almost twice that of young people in the broader population. The data demonstrates that insufficient action has been taken by the government to counteract the incidence of violence and abuse against people with disability. Bill Shorten announced the policy of a standalone royal commission on 26 May 2017 in response to calls from advocates, academics, representative organisations and people with disability. Labor announced that this would be held in the first 100 days of forming government. Labor supports this motion and calls on the government to establish a royal commission immediately.
I was so pleased when the ALP—
Are you seeking leave?
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Before you start, Senator Siewert, this session of business relies on the chamber behaving. There were too many interjections during that contribution. Leave is granted for one minute.
I was so happy when the ALP finally saw the light and agreed that we needed a royal commission into the violence and abuse and neglect of people with disability. We had a Senate inquiry into this issue which strongly recommended first a royal commission. The ALP did not pick that up at that time, despite the overwhelming evidence that we need a royal commission to look into and to investigate the violence and abuse and neglect of people with a disability. I find it simply gobsmackingly hypocritical for them to stand up and claim that the Greens are finally following them. Please give us a break. It is yet another one of the issues where the Australian Labor Party have come on board with the Greens. Royal commission into banking, ICAC—I could go on and on.
Order! Senator Siewert, resume your seat. Order! On my left!
The question is that motion No. 1287 be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Polley, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the September 2018 home care package data, released by the Morrison Government, reveals 126,732 older Australians are on a waitlist for a home care package,
(ii) 69,086 older Australians are without any home care package, and
(iii) the Morrison Government has, for the first time, completely omitted the home care package waitlist by total in the report released last week;
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to address the home care package waitlist as a matter of urgency, particularly the growing number of older Australians waiting without any package; and
(c) affirms that action by the Morrison Government is needed now, and it must deliver an appropriate response to address the growing home care package waitlist in this year's Mid-Year Economic Fiscal Outlook.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Our government is committed to quality care for senior Australians, including a record $18.6 billion aged-care investment in 2017-18, the first part of an estimated $105.2 billion commitment planned for the next five years. Demand for home care packages is increasing, which is a reflection of the desire of senior Australians to remain living in their homes for as long as possible. There is an additional $1.6 billion invested in home care packages for the 2018-19 budget, increasing home care packages to 151,000 by 2022, including 34,000 more high-level packages. The vast majority of people who do not have a package have the opportunity to receive other Commonwealth funded support. Around 92 per cent have been approved to access services through the Commonwealth Home Support Program, meaning most people have the opportunity to connect with Commonwealth subsidised support while waiting for a package.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the new National Interest Test for the Australian Research Council research grants will allow the Government of the day to influence an independent research approval process,
(ii) narrow political agendas should not be allowed to determine long-term research priorities, and
(iii) the Australian Research Council already has a rigorous peer review process for assessing grant applications and applicants are required to demonstrate the benefits and impact of their research; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to remove the National Interest Test from research grants administered by the Australian Research Council.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor's exposure in Senate estimates of the secret political manipulation of the Australian Research Council has rightly shocked the Australian research community. The government's response to engage in the denigration of researchers and to impose an Orwellian-sounding national interest test has been rightly unanimously condemned by scholars and universities. The so-called national interest test is nothing more than an instrument for the further political manipulation of an independent, peer reviewed process, nor is it needed. Scholars already have to prove the national benefit and impact of their research proposals. Labor have announced that if a minister of a Shorten Labor government decides not to fund a grant recommended by the ARC, we will explain ourselves to the public through the parliament providing reasons. We will lift the veil of secrecy and will enshrine our commitment in legislation. We will remove the national interest test. Only Labor will restore integrity, confidence and trust to the Australian Research Council, and it will regain the esteem it held when we were last in office. (Time expired)
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government opposes this motion. The government has worked with the Australian Research Council to implement the new national interest test. Applicants will be asked to provide up to 150 words in plain English on the extent to which the research contributes to Australia's national interest through its potential to have economic, commercial, environmental, social or cultural benefits to the Australian community. Introducing a national interest test will give the Australian public confidence by providing greater transparency on Commonwealth spending.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The national interest test proposed by Minister Tehan is straight out of Yes Minister. The farcical proposal is a Liberal tactic of inventing a problem and then trying to solve it. Academics and researchers see right through it. The test's whole purpose is to allow ministers to further interfere in the already independent, rigorous, peer reviewed process for narrow political reasons. The Australian Research Council already requires researchers to demonstrate the benefits and impacts of their research. If the minister had spent five minutes talking to the research community, he would know that. Narrow political agendas should not be allowed to determine long-term research priorities. We shouldn't allow political interference in the Australian Research Council grants, no matter who is in government.
The question is that motion No. 1294 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes paragraph (c) of the procedural order of continuing effect no. 20, which requires the full text of proposed bilateral and multilateral agreements be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Trade (now the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) at least 14 days before signing;
(b) notes the failure of the Government to comply with the order prior to Australia signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP11 Agreement);
(c) insists the Government comply with the order, so Australians can consider the text of the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, and all other proposed agreements, prior to the Executive signing the agreement; and
(d) requires that:
(i) the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) attend the Senate on Wednesday, 5 December 2018, prior to government business being called on, to explain why the Minister has not complied with procedural order no. 20,
(ii) at the conclusion of the Minister's explanation, any senator may, without notice, move a motion to take note of the Minister's explanation, and
(iii) any motion under paragraph (d) (ii) may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all government business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises:
(i) the Liberal-National Coalition Government's enduring support for investment in Central and North Queensland,
(ii) the Liberal-National Coalition Government's unmatched support for the creation of jobs and new opportunities in Central and North Queensland,
(iii) the Liberal-National Coalition Government's support for Adani's Carmichael Mine project, and
(iv) that in the previous financial year, the resources sector contributed $62 billion to Queensland's economy and was responsible for more than 54,000 full-time jobs;
(b) further recognises that the Adani Carmichael Mine project is overwhelmingly supported by the Wangan and Jagalingou people, the Traditional Owners;
(c) notes that it was announced on 29 November 2018 that Adani's Carmichael Mine project would proceed; and
(d) welcomes the jobs and prosperity that this project will bring to the people of Central and North Queensland.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This government has never met a coalmine it didn't want to approve and, coincidentally, the Liberal Party has also never met a donation from the coal industry that it did not want to take. I'd like to place on record statements from the traditional owners of the land, the Wangan and Jagalingou people. They've had this to say about the Adani mine:
If the Carmichael mine were to proceed it would tear the heart out of the land. The scale of this mine means it would have devastating impacts on our native title, ancestral lands and waters, our totemic plants and animals, and our environmental and cultural heritage. It would pollute and drain billions of litres of groundwater, and obliterate important springs systems. It would potentially wipe out threatened and endangered species. It would literally leave a huge black hole, monumental in proportions, where there were once our homelands. These effects are irreversible. Our land will be "disappeared".
The question is that motion No. 1297 be agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1298 standing in my name for today, relating to the East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the East Coast Inshore Fin-Fish Fishery (ECIFFF) is Queensland's largest fishery, running adjacent to the entire east coast,
(ii) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's most recent Outlook Report (2014) identifies the management of the ECIFFF by the Queensland Government as a risk to the reef's ecosystem and heritage values, particularly through the taking of predators, and the bycatching of endangered wildlife, such as snubfin dolphins and dugongs,
(iii) the Queensland Government's Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027 outlines its commitment to the reform of fisheries management,
(iv) the Minister for the Environment is considering the ecological sustainability of the ECIFFF for export approval,
(v) scalloped hammerhead sharks were recently listed as Conservation Dependent, following advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), but are still being taken from the ECIFFF, and
(vi) the TSSC recommended that scalloped hammerhead sharks be landed with fins attached, as is the case in Commonwealth, South Australian, New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian managed fisheries; and
(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment to ensure that strong, time-bound conditions are attached to the accreditation of the ECIFFF for export approval, including:
(i) a requirement to ensure an independent observer and monitoring program is implemented,
(ii) analysis of high conservation values to snubfin dolphins and dugongs, and implementation of area closures to reduce bycatch following the principles of adaptive management (noting that work is ongoing in regard to real-time tracking of dolphins and dugongs in an effort to reduce bycatch), and
(iii) a requirement for scalloped hammerhead sharks to be landed with fins attached.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The export application for the East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery is being assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The minister will decide whether or not to approve the application and what conditions, if any, should be attached in accordance with the criteria in the act.
The question is that motion No. 1298, as amended, be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity took place in Egypt from 13 to 29 November 2018,
(ii) the United Nations report to the Convention demonstrated that Australia is failing to meet international targets, especially in parts of the country where land clearing and habitat destruction are widespread,
(iii) the World Wildlife Fund also issued a report, as part of the conference, that placed Australia amongst the worst performers on biodiversity in a group of 100 nations, and
(iv) the Convention called on governments to scale up investments in nature and people towards 2020 and beyond, and to accelerate action to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to heed the recommendations of the Convention.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Liberal-National coalition government has put in place several important measures to safeguard Australia's biodiversity. In 2014, the government appointed Australia's first Threatened Species Commissioner to help drive improvements in threatened species conservation. In 2015, we launched the Threatened Species Strategy, which contains ambitious targets, including a commitment to turn around the population trajectories of 20 mammals, 20 birds and 30 plants by 2020. In 2017, we launched the Threatened Species Prospectus to encourage the private sector to join us in saving species. Since 2014, over $302 million has been mobilised for over 1,200 projects protecting and recovering threatened species.
The question is that motion No. 1301 be agreed to.
I, and on behalf of Senator Waters, move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, on 6 December 2018, documents relating to the Department of the Environment (the Department) investigation into alleged breaches by the Adani Corporation at its Carmichael mine site, including:
(a) records of any site inspection, including any photographs or videos taken;
(b) any brief of evidence prepared to enable the Department to conclude its investigation;
(c) any advice sought and received on the scope of the definition of 'mining operations';
(d) any correspondence between the Department and Adani;
(e) any matters of national environmental significance plan/s for the management of direct and indirect impacts of mining operations on the Doongmabulla Spring Complex or Black-throated Finch; and
(f) any correspondence between the office of the Minister for the Environment and the Department.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Consistent with the compliance and enforcement policy, the Department of the Environment and Energy does not release information on individual compliance and enforcement activities unless it is required for investigation purposes.
The question is that motion No. 1302 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) since 17 October 2018, when Senator Waters started moving motions acknowledging the number of women killed by violence between sittings of the Senate, 16 women have died by violence in Australia; it is very welcome, but sadly unusual, that there have been no reports of a woman killed by violence since the Senate last sat one week ago,
(ii) in 2018 so far, 63 women have been killed by violence in Australia – 9 more than the previous year already, as reported by Counting Dead Women Australia from Destroy The Joint,
(iii) on average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner,
(iv) 1 in 3 Australian women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15,
(v) 1 in 5 Australian women has experienced sexual violence,
(vi) 1 in 6 Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner,
(vii) 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner,
(viii) Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner,
(ix) there is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence,
(x) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report experiencing violence in the previous 12 months at 3 times the rate of non-Indigenous women, and
(xi) in 2014-15, Indigenous women were 32 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence as non-Indigenous women; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) recognise domestic violence against women as a national security crisis,
(ii) adequately fund frontline domestic violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them,
(iii) legislate for 10 days paid domestic violence leave so that women do not have to choose between paying the bills and seeking safety, and
(iv) implement all 25 recommendations of the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into domestic violence in Australia, tabled on 20 August 2015.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Liberal-National coalition government has zero tolerance for violence against women and works with all jurisdictions to keep women and children safe. The government has invested over $300 million to improve women's safety since 2015, focusing on practical measures that reduce the incidence of violence and support victims and their children. The government is developing the fourth national action plan to reduce violence against women and their children. Legislation is currently before the parliament to approve a minimum standard of five days of unpaid domestic violence leave, as recommended by the Fair Work Commission.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) the Senate calls on the Federal Government to legislate to phase-out long-haul live sheep exports; and
(b) this resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
A phase-out of the live export trade would have detrimental and long-lasting consequences for producers and their communities. A ban will cost farmers over $230 million and deliver around 3,200 job losses. It is for this reason that the government have taken decisive action to tighten controls over the live export trade. We have acted to ensure animal welfare and in recognition of the importance of the sector to Australian farmers and the food security needs of our trading partners. Our reforms, informed by the McCarthy and Moss reviews, are significant, extensive and improve animal welfare and oversight of the exporters by the regulator.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Senate has voted against live exports. The community is demanding an end to this cruel trade in misery—
They are not.
and yet we see no action from this government. Do you know what? This is what you are allowing. This is the animal cruelty that you are abetting and aiding.
That is not true.
Shame on all of you!
Senator Faruqi! This section of business relies on senators behaving and abiding by the rules. You know well displays of that nature are completely out of order. It is utterly and completely inappropriate, and leave can be denied by any senator if people are going to misbehave.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute. Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order.
Mr President, not only have we had interjections during this session but we have had senators who have been sitting out of their seats right next to my colleagues—literally three seats away—and interjecting in their ears while they're speaking. I think it is totally inappropriate. They shouldn't be interjecting in the first place, let alone outside their seats in close proximity to speakers.
Quite right, Senator Whish-Wilson, and I can list the senators in this chamber who don't do that on one hand. I'm not fond of biblical quotations, but let they who are innocent cast the first stone.
Labor is supporting this motion and urges the government to allow the will of the parliament on this matter. If the government is confident that it has the numbers in the House of Representatives to defeat the motion, or indeed Labor's amendment to its penalty bill in the other place, it should put it to a vote rather than denying the will of the parliament and indeed the will of the Australian public, who expect their leaders to actually represent them in the people's house.
The question is that motion No. 1291 be agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1283, standing in my name and the names of Senators Stoker and O'Sullivan for today relating to Queensland abortion laws, be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator interjecting—
There is. Leave is not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion that general business notice of motion No. 1283 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Pursuant to the order adopted last week, that procedural motion is put without debate. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders to allow motion No. 1283 to be dealt with as a formal motion be agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Section 313 of the Queensland Criminal Code formally contains offences in relation to the killing of an unborn child, stating, inter alia:
Any person who … prevents the child from being born alive by any act or omission … would be deemed to have unlawfully killed the child, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for life.
However, under the Palaszczuk Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018, this section of the Queensland Criminal Code was amended by inserting a new subsection, subsection 313(1A), which states:
A person does not commit an offence … by performing a termination, or assisting in the performance of a termination, under the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018.
This is the legal proof that the Queensland Labor government has legalised murder.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The opposition have decided to deny formality to this motion because we believe that issues such as the one raised in this motion should not be dealt with in formal business. We have made this position clear on several occasions when similar motions have been moved in this place, and this decision to deny formality is consistent with that approach. I would like to briefly remind senators of the comments made by the President of the Senate just last week, where he said:
What was once a time to deal with matters that didn't require debate or amendment has become a pseudo-debate where senators are required to vote on matters without an opportunity for discussion. What was once non-contentious is now the most combative business period. It isn't serving its purpose and is rapidly cascading into farce.
This motion seeks to have the Senate vote quickly on a matter which many senators hold deep and personal views on. I would also like to note that moving motions in this chamber that relate to issues that the federal parliament does not have any direct legislative jurisdiction over is not the correct use of the Senate's time.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the commencement of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, that is critical to financing the Green Climate Fund (the Fund) that aims to spend USD $100 billion per year by 2020;
(b) commends the Morrison Government for rejecting the latest request for additional Australian taxpayer contribution to the Fund; and
(c) calls upon the Federal Government to follow the example of the United States of America and other nations and withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian government is committed to working more closely than ever with Pacific states on their issues of greatest concern, which include climate solutions and disaster resilience. We will keep the international commitments we have made, including our pledge of $300 million in climate assistance to the Pacific. Australia will not provide further funding to the UN Green Climate Fund, because we believe we can deliver more effective results for our region by working with our neighbours in the Pacific on climate solutions.
The Green Climate Fund is not projected to spend US$100 billion per year by 2020. This figure is the total global commitment to climate finance from all sources, including governments and the private sector.
The question is that the motion moved by Senate Bernardi be agreed to.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 10 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator McKim:
Pursuant to standing order 75 I give notice that today I propose to move that in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Australia's coal exports are the are one of the most significant contributors to climate change globally.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the senators in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Australia's coal exports are one of the most significant contributors to climate change globally.
Australia's coal exports are one of the most significant contributors to climate change globally. It's very timely for us to be drawing this matter to the attention of the chamber, because last week Mr Bill Shorten claimed, in relation to the Adani mega coalmine, that the emissions created by the mine would not be Australia's problem—because they wouldn't be on our books, because of complicated international carbon accounting. Well, we call BS on that, and the Australian public knows it. What an absolute joke, to completely wash his hands of any leadership on this mega coalmine and on what would be the first coal basin to be opened up in 50 years.
Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter and, sadly, both sides of politics are very happy with that situation and would like to see it continue. All the while, the international science gets clearer and sharper and, frankly, more terrifying with every instalment they give us. We are cooking our planet. We are sending ourselves to extinction, let alone all the other species we share this place with. That's why we are moving today to debate this matter.
It's very interesting that I moved a motion, earlier, calling on both parties to take a stand on the Adani mega coalmine and to simply say that it should not proceed. Labor have been very tricky about this, to be perfectly honest. They keep saying how clear their position is, yet they keep being deliberately unclear. They're saying that it shouldn't be publicly funded, but they're not saying whether they will step in and stop this mine from proceeding. It's perfectly clear. We have legal advice. We had agreement from the government yesterday in question time. There are three ways this mine could be stopped, even using our current incredibly weak environmental laws, and I say that as an environmental lawyer. I know this stuff.
If Mr Bill Shorten and his party want to take a stand on climate change he could come out today and say that he will review the environmental approvals that have been given to the Adani Carmichael coalmine, on the basis of a litany of new information that's come to light since those approvals were granted. That is a formal trigger, under our environmental laws, to review the approval. It could be reviewed and then it could be revoked. That's your first option.
There are other options. They could simply deny the groundwater management plan. It hasn't yet been approved by Queensland Labor. It hasn't yet been approved by the federal environmental minister. Either of those people could simply acknowledge that more than half of Queensland is in drought and not give free groundwater to an international coal company—when half of Queensland is on fire due to extreme weather events driven by climate change. The last way that this mine could be stopped would be to not grant approval for their water pipeline. Again, it's 12½ billion litres they want to take from surface water in addition to unlimited free groundwater. Why is this mega coalmining company, with a history and track record of appalling environmental practices and breaches of environmental conditions, getting free water when more than half the state is in drought and farmers are desperate to use their water allocations? Why also are they getting a four-year royalty holiday? The favours just keep on coming for this international, multinational coal company, and you've got to wonder why.
If you look at the donations made by the resources sector, including coalmining companies, including the Adani companies, it tells a very interesting story. There has been $3.4 million donated to both sides of politics over the last four years, so it isn't any wonder that we don't see a single spine on either side of this chamber when it comes to standing up for a safe climate, for a healthy future for our kids, for a prosperous economy based on clean energy, which we know creates jobs and won't cook the other half of the Great Barrier Reef. We've already seen 50 per cent of the reef's coral cover die.
The science is clear. It is being driven by climate change and extreme weather events. We are now in a climate crisis, and both of these big parties are sleepwalking into worse damage to our communities, to our economy, to our very social fabric and to nature itself. They are sleepwalking into this because they are both completely in hock to the coalmining industry, they are hooked on the donations that this industry makes and they should be ashamed of themselves. It's about time we saw a position from Labor on this. Indeed, we were given one today when Labor voted to block my motion and instead voted to say that Adani should proceed. Shame on you! The Australian public don't want this mine to proceed and I, for one, will be joining them in the non-violent direct action that they will take to stop this mine ever going ahead.
I want to make some comments on a couple of points that Senator Waters made about donations to political parties. I just find it amazing that, at the 2010 election, Graeme Wood, former owner of Wotif, donated $1.58 million to the Greens. At the time, it was the greatest donation to any political party in the history of Australia. Of course, come the 2 July 2016 election, Mr Wood tossed in another $600,000. That's $2.2 million donated by one bloke to the Greens party. It gets worse. I did a little bit of research into the CFMEU. What does CFMEU stand for? Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. And they donate to the Greens. What do the Greens hate? The Greens hate construction, forestry, mining and any energy that's generated unless it's renewable. Why did that union donate $50,000 in 2015 to the Greens in the ACT? That's just amazing. This is such a farce. Let me just read a bit of my op ed that was in The Australian a month or so ago:
There has been a lot of discussion of late on coal-fired electricity and climate change. The IPCC has come out with another meeting and people like former Liberal leader John Hewson have entered the debate. Take a look at the facts. Australia has 22 operating coal-fired generating plants of at least 30 megawatts capacity—
There are 22 in total and we're shutting them down and not building any new ones. The article continues:
Compare that with China, our biggest trading partner, which has 1,003 coal fired power generating plants operating to the same capacity and a further 130 under construction.
We have 22 in total; China has 1,003 with 130 under construction.
The extra 130 planned in China will, on their own, produce more CO2 than the whole of Australia …
I'm going to ask a very simple question, Senator Macdonald. What do you think they're going to burn in the existing 1,003 coal-fired generation plants and the 130 under construction? They're going to burn coal.
Goldfish.
Not goldfish, Senator Scullion. They're going to burn coal. Are they going to burn the inferior poor quality coal from Indonesia and China—the brown coal—or the more efficient high-energy coal from Australia? If they burn Australian coal, there are going to be less CO2 emissions. That is a fact. But, of course, the Greens want to shut down every coalmine in Australia and see that no more coal is produced.
I wonder if the Greens ever drive a car. I'm sure some of them do. I wonder what the car is made of. Is it made of leaves and bark from trees or is it made of steel? I bet you it's made of steel. How do we get steel? From iron ore. Processed with what? Coal—coking coal. We use high-quality coal to produce our steel. It's all right to have coal to produce everything the Greens want—perhaps their timber furniture, their timber floorboards, their steel-framed house or whatever they live in—but it's not all right for anyone else. This whole political line they run is just a farce. Steelmaking relies on coal. It's just a fact that the use of coal is going to increase as time goes on.
The International Energy Agency, the IEA, has declared that coal has made a comeback in the latest World Energy Outlook update. The World Energy Outlook 2018 shows continued strong growth in Asia and demand for coal through to 2040. You protest here about coal-fired generation. Why don't you go to China or Asia or India and protest there? You'd probably get short shrift if you did; that's probably why you don't go over there. The big emitters are producing and building new coal-fired generation plants, while we shut them down in Australia and then complain that our electricity prices are so high. Under the IEA's new policy scenario, which includes countries' nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, the WEO estimates that growth in demand for coal in the Asia-Pacific will increase by 492 million tonnes of coal equivalent by 2040. The Asia-Pacific region is going to burn an extra 492 million tonnes of coal a year, but we just shut our coal-fired generation plants. There are 22 here producing reliable energy, and we're going to change the planet? No, we're not. We go through the cost and we run the risk of shifting businesses overseas and shutting them down here, like the cement industry.
I remember the carbon tax days of the Labor government—the tax we were promised would never happen under a Gillard led government, but of course it did happen with the big push of the former member for New England, Tony Windsor. We produced 10 million tonnes of cement in Australia, and 0.8 of a tonne of CO2 for each tonne of cement. So 10 million tonnes of cement makes eight million tonnes of CO2. We were going to shut the industry down and go to China, where they produce one billion tonnes of cement a year. When they produce one tonne of cement, they produce 1.1 tonnes of CO2. So if we shut down our 10 million tonnes of cement, which produced eight million tonnes of CO2, and shifted to China, if we buy 10 million tonnes off them, they produce 11 million tonnes of CO2—three million tonnes extra for cement.
This is the crazy way that people think. We in Australia put our costs up, shut our mines down, put people on the dole, drive around in cars made of tree leaves and bark and don't have any steel through the process of coal contributing to that. Be realistic. Shut industries down and move them overseas, and those same industries that do the same job overseas will actually produce more CO2 on the planet. We don't have a tent over Australia. As Dr Finkel told Senator Macdonald at Senate estimates, we can cut all of our emissions in Australia, and the change to the world would be virtually nothing.
This is a political game being played. Be realistic. No matter what we do in this country, we cannot change the planet with CO2. But we can look after our environment. We can look after our rivers and water systems. We can look after our farmland and the topsoil that's got to grow the food for thousands of years to come. We can actually put carbon dioxide into the soil, build the carbon levels, make the soil better and have a positive effect on our environment. This whole emissions trading scheme, this carbon tax and all these costs we're running now will achieve absolutely nothing.
As we sit in the parliament today, diplomats from around the world are themselves sitting in the United Nations annual climate change conference—give or take a couple of hours for the time difference. The conference this year is held in the Polish city of Katowice, a city whose industrial roots lay in mining coal. The conference halls where the discussions take place are heated by coal-fired power plants. It's a neat metaphor for the very broad problem we're struggling with across the globe.
This year's conference in Katowice is an extension of the process that began in Kyoto, passed through Copenhagen and then passed through Paris. It is our attempt as a global community to use the international rules based order to create a system that can reduce carbon emissions in a way that is fair and in a way that is economical for nations all around the world. That attempt, however, does butt up against the ongoing legacy of carbon-intensive industrialisation—a legacy that is still visible and ongoing in Katowice, Poland, as indeed it is in many nations around the world, including our own.
How we navigate these two immovable facts is the problem at the heart of climate policy, and it is a challenge that Australia is failing to meet under this government. That is in no small part due to the actions of the party that put forward this urgency motion for debate, the Australian Greens. We heard in question time today the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, congratulate and thank the Greens political party for voting against the CPRS put forward by the Rudd government. I can see why he would want to thank them, because that vote by the Greens—some of whom are still here with us in the chamber today—set off the climate wars that have consumed Australian politics for over a decade. It is time for the Greens to grapple with the consequences of what they have done. I have never seen any contrition nor any admission of the mistakes that have led us to this point. Their vote undid the best chance Australia had to legislate an enduring and effective policy response to climate change. I have never heard the word 'sorry' from anyone up that end of the chamber. And the consequences of that decision are stark.
Are you embarrassed about the carbon tax? You should be proud of it.
Order! Senator McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Di Natale, Senator McAllister is entitled to be heard in silence.
Thank you. The consequences of that decision are stark—half a decade of government with a party described by their own Minister for Women as a party of homophobes, sexists and climate denialists, and we've had absolute policy stasis on climate change. We heard just now from Senator Williams, in his contribution, a total failure to accept our obligations to reduce our own emissions and a total failure to understand the realities of what it will take to transition our economy and, indeed, the global economy to a low-carbon economy. As Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute noted:
… it remains a fact that we don't have a climate change policy in this country.
Australian's inaction on climate is unacceptable in the face of mounting visible evidence of the impact climate change is having on Australia and the world. The science is clear and compelling. Recent studies show the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years and the top four have been in the past four years. Climate action must be increased fivefold to limit warning to the 1.5 degree Celsius increase that scientists tell us according to the UN.
This evidence is not accepted by many in the coalition. The member for Hughes, whose preselection has just been rescued by the Prime Minister, has previously said:
It's CO2 we are talking about: it's what turns water into soda water; it's what makes chardonnay into champagne.
Well, unlike many in the coalition—and, indeed, I suspect most who are in the chamber today—Labor believe in the science of climate change, and we believe in action on it. Labor's climate plan includes delivering 50 per cent of power from renewables by 2030, zero net pollution by 2050, a plan for batteries in households and an additional $10 billion in capital for the Clean Energy Corporation to effect a transition.
Like the UN meeting about climate change in halls heated by coal-fired power plants, our own efforts in Australia run up against our industrial and mining legacy. And the answer to that legacy lies in the international rules for carbon accounting and reduction that are being discussed in Poland right now. That system accounts for emissions at the point of use, rather than at the point they are mined. As a consequence of those rules, the greatest threats to the viability of coalmining are international carbon reduction efforts and investments in renewables that are rendering the mining and use of thermal coal uneconomical and undesirable. The International Energy Agency's next annual report on the global coal market is due next month. The 2017 report, however, was clear: demand for coal will be stagnant over the next half a decade. And this is optimistic compared to some other assessments. A report, for instance, by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis this year forecast profound drops in the demand for coal if you take into account the falling price of renewable energy and global action on climate change.
There are decarbonisation efforts in effect in some of Australia's biggest thermal coal importers—countries such as China, South Korea and Japan—and the effects are already biting. We can see the effects of a decreasing global appetite for coal in the Australian projects. The Adani project has been forced to self-fund because it was unable to raise capital from financiers either in Australia or aboard. The reason for that isn't a sudden attack of conscience by the banks; it is because coal increasingly represents a serious risk to investors. Even self-funding, Adani has been forced to proceed with something that is just one-sixth of the size they initially hoped for.
We should applaud the reduction in carbon emissions that comes from global efforts to reduce the demand for coal, but we shouldn't celebrate the effect that it has on jobs and industry—not for one moment should we celebrate it. We cannot wish away our industrial and mining legacy, and we cannot ignore the communities and jobs that have grown up around it over the past decades. These are communities filled with decent, hardworking people doing decent jobs that are well paid—union jobs where people are properly represented. And these people should not be asked to bear the costs of decarbonisation alone and without support.
We benefit collectively from action on climate change. We have a collective obligation to help those on whom the consequences fall. A climate change policy is incomplete if it does not account for the working people whose jobs and communities are affected. Unfortunately, time after time, the Greens political party fail this test. A just transition has to be something more than an empty phrase tacked onto the end of a speech. It has to be a meaningful response to the very real upheaval that the closure of power plants and mines has on very real people's lives, because the costs of economic adjustment are not fairly distributed. We've seen under this government a complete failure to support those affected by the closure of the car industry. There has been no action. I don't see the Greens out there fighting for those workers, either. There has been no action whatsoever to support those people. But that will not be Labor's approach, not for this industry or any other industry. That's why we have committed to establishing an independent just transition authority to help plan for and coordinate the response to the eventual closure of coal-fired power stations in the future. We will also make it mandatory for power stations and coalmines to participate in pooled redundancy schemes to help ensure that every worker impacted by a closure is provided an offer of employment at a nearby power station or coalmine, subject to enough positions being created.
This isn't happening tomorrow; this is happening in the long term. But people are crying out for long-term planning and a long-term transition—a way of dealing with the very large change that is washing through our economy and through the global economy. The UNSW Business School recently put out a report on the pathways for transition in Australia. It's entitled The Ruhr or Appalachia? It reflects on the very different post-industrial experiences of the German and American working classes. The German example reflects real investment and engagement with the needs of working-class people. The American example does not. The Greens are fond of using this chamber to talk about the rise of right-wing populism. They would do well to reflect, and consider whose example they would rather we follow in Australia: the Ruhr or Appalachia.
Madam Deputy President McCarthy, I apologise for laughing, but I've heard in the last two speakers all of the mantra, all of the slogans and all of the Canberra-bubble comments you can get without any thought going into what is actually being said. Like the schoolchildren they praise so much, they have simply been brainwashed and propagandised. It's a disgrace that in our country people of the Left are so devoid of decent arguments that they have to try to get children, who don't understand any of this, propagandised to do the work for them.
As a Queensland senator, I am here to support my state. I'm so very disappointed with the mover of this motion, who is a Queensland senator. He doesn't care about jobs in Queensland and he doesn't care about the Queensland budget, which only exists because of royalties from coalmines. He doesn't care about the Labor Townsville City Council and the people they represent. He doesn't care about these small businesses in North Queensland, where I come from, who will create genuine employment from the Adani mine. I'm delighted, and congratulate Adani for proceeding with the Carmichael mine under the most severe impediment by those on the Left in our country.
I'm pleased that Senator Moore is here, as a Queensland senator. It will be interesting to hear what she says. I notice that the other Queensland senators always run when this argument comes up, because, federally, Labor oppose Adani, but in Queensland Labor support it because they need the money.
The previous speaker said we don't follow the science. Well, I'm sorry, I follow the Chief Scientist of Australia. I refer people to the Hansard at page 76 on 1 June 2017, when I asked the Chief Scientist:
If we were to reduce the world's emissions of carbon by 1.3 per cent, what impact would that make on the changing climate of the world?
Dr Finkel responded:
Virtually nothing.
Virtually nothing! So the Greens and the Labor Party get themselves into a tizz over wanting 50 per cent, 80 per cent or 100 per cent reductions in Australian emissions for no purpose at all! It won't make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world! Don't take my word for that; ask the Chief Scientist. Ask him yourself!
They don't believe in the science!
They don't believe in the science! They get in here and mouth the words and mantra that we get from the Greens political party in particular and Labor when they think it suits their purposes.
I am disappointed that in this country we cannot have a serious argument or debate about this without going into the old slogans that the Greens political party keep churning out and can never argue the case for. I keep asking the Greens. Australia emits less than 1.3 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. If we shut Australia down completely, it would mean virtually nothing to climate change. That's the fact of the matter. I ask the Greens about it, but they will never answer me. They never answer me, because there is not an answer. There is not an answer so far as Australia is concerned. Australia does its bit. We've reduced our emissions as a good corporate citizen of the world. We've met our Kyoto targets—plus, plus, plus. We're meeting our Paris accord targets—plus, plus, plus. We're doing our bit. But to go beyond that—as the Green Party always call for, and Labor when they think it wins them a few votes—will mean absolutely nothing to the world's carbon emissions.
The rubbish you just heard from previous speakers about these days being the hottest days we've had, the most fires we've had and the greatest floods we've had—it's all rubbish! When we have a cyclone, the Greens will always say, 'There you are; it's climate change.' 'Cyclone Yasi was the biggest cyclone we've had in Queensland,' they used to say. 'The biggest cyclone we've ever had in Queensland,'—and then, in a low voice—'since 1928.' 'The hottest day we've ever had in Queensland, since 1932,'—it's always 'since', which just shows that the climate's always been changing. I have a graph here—I can't table it—that shows that the temperatures in the world, going back tens of thousands of years, are lower now than they have been in one, two, three, four periods in the earth's history, and they're a little bit warmer than two other periods in the earth's history. But this is not new. This has happened in the past. Antarctic scientists have proven this by the work they've done geologically to show what the climate has been like in years gone by. So nothing the Greens political party will ever tell you is based upon fact. It's simply based upon a pitch to the strange sort of people who support the Greens political party and the children that they've brainwashed and propagandised into doing their dirty work in Australia.
Already, there are other countries opening up coal-fired power stations. As Senator Williams so finely and accurately pointed out, the amount of carbon we emit in Australia as a nation is less than what these new power stations are already emitting. Look after the jobs of workers—that's what we're doing. The comments from the previous speakers from the Labor Party, written by the union movement, try to have two bob each way, I have to say. But we in the coalition, we in the Liberal-National Party, are serious about the jobs of workers in the coalmining industry, and, in fact, in all mining industries. We look after them. We look after the Queensland Labor government's budget bottom line, because without coal the state would be broke, and they know that. We are the party looking after workers and their jobs, and we try to bring a bit of sense into this argument that is otherwise full of rhetoric, slang and slogans by the Greens political party.
Sometimes when I look at the agenda for these debates, and I see that this is supposed to be a matter of importance, I get excited. Then, all too quickly, my excitement fades, because what happens is, rather than having a genuine discussion looking at a matter of genuine importance and trying to share knowledge and experience, it degenerates into what we often see whenever the issue is around coal or energy: a position where people have already made up their minds. They determine what they believe is right regardless of what other arguments they hear and regardless of what people are asking for in the wider community, which is some genuine understanding and acceptance that people, while they may have different views, have a common goal.
On this particular argument, as we always see, it is not coming together to try and find out how we genuinely look at protecting our planet, understanding that we are global citizens. It doesn't matter whether we live here, whether we live in the Pacific islands, whether we live in Europe or whether we live in Antarctica: we are global citizens. The issues around climate change do continue to be debated in this place, because there do continue to be people who think that we have no role to play in this debate. They think that we can close our eyes, curl up in a ball in the southern part of the world and pretend, as we've just heard Senator Macdonald say, that there is nothing we can do to impact change, and that, therefore, we should just go ahead and ignore any of the evidence that's come forward that actually points to the fact that there are issues around our use of energy, that there are issues in the way that we celebrate, in some parts of this chamber, and that there is no alternative to the use and continued mining of coal with no limitations, with no restrictions and with a complete focus in our energy production and usage around coal in every sense.
This afternoon we've heard people taking widely different positions, and that will continue because there doesn't seem to be any willingness to listen. People have already determined that either there is a problem and we're part of it or there could be a problem and we're no part of it, and that absolutely none of that problem relates to the use of coal and the continued mining of coal not just at the current levels but at ever increasing levels.
What we hear from the people who do support, in this strange way, doing things in the same way is that it's not enough that already—the international evidence is that while Australia doesn't feature in the top 50 nations by population we are one of the top 20 economies, proven by our engagement in the G20, and we are one of the top 15 nations in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions. There is not an argument about that. That's fact. There may well be argument, as I've heard from the other side, consistently, about what causes greenhouse emissions. But in terms of the fact that they are real, I do not believe that there is an outstanding argument on that issue.
The IPCC's recent report that came down caused great concern in some parts of the world. It caused great concern in parts of our country as well. I know that Senator Faruqi quoted extensively from comments made by David Attenborough at the current conference in Europe, and I know other people in this debate have quoted from that too. It is extraordinarily concerning reading. You see across the world a group of experts, in the area of science, with no vested interest. The people gathered at this international conference do not have any particular ownership in saying that our situation has reached crisis. That benefits no-one.
The evidence we have before us talks about the gap in the way countries and individuals across the world are looking at the issues and taking measures for change. The gap that is occurring is leading to an urgency and a crisis across the world that may see significant changes in temperatures, our geography and the likelihood of the Arctic Ocean being free of sea ice in summer. The proportion of the global population exposed to global warming-induced water shortages will be up 50 per cent if we don't make change. Our coral reefs would, basically, cease to exist at the current level. And the indications go on. In terms of the fear that it engenders, it seems that it's selective. People are able to disassociate themselves from this situation, disassociate themselves from the concerns that have been raised. Indeed, as we've heard from Senator Macdonald, it does not seem to be a problem. Most specifically, it does not seem to be 'our' problem.
I think that's where the arguments diverge. You accept that there are serious issues around climate change. You accept that there are a range of factors causing these issues, and that does include coal production and coal use for energy. It is not the only cause. And that's another issue. In our enthusiasm to find individual reasons that we can blame, very often people find one or two things and think they are the only causes. That's not true. There are a range of causes. There are a range of issues that we have to address. First of all, we have to identify, share and accept that there is a problem and that we're part of it.
Last week in this place I had the joy of listening to a group of schoolchildren. These were not the schoolchildren to whom Senator Macdonald referred—who were ignorant, who were taking information from others, who were brainwashed—these were young people who were given the opportunity to do their own research. These were 11- and 12-year-olds. This is at a time when their brains are seeking information. What they did was research sustainable development goals. Amidst that, they accepted that we are part of the world and that we have shared responsibilities and that there are issues around climate change and energy. Some of the children decided that this was the area on which they would concentrate.
Using the research they had available to them, they looked at the way we use energy, the way we generate energy, in our country and looked at the desperate need to find renewable ways to have energy in our lives and how we can best use that. They were not running away from the issues. They did not see that, somehow, if you lived in Australia, you were not part of a global problem. They didn't see that they could be removed from any responsibility and they accepted that there would be impacts on their lives, on their family's lives and on their communities if we didn't take action.
So I think it is important that we do consider what is described as a matter of importance. But I do think it would be useful if, in this process, there was a degree of listening rather than just running the same arguments that we hold dear and attacking those who don't share those beliefs. I think that we had the opportunity to look at the international science evidence and also the significant evidence that has been produced locally by our scientists and by the researchers that work in the space in our communities here. I know Senator Macdonald quoted one statement from the Chief Scientist. If you look at the work that the Chief Scientist produced when he was doing his research across the country a few years ago, in building up to what was then the National Energy Guarantee, you can see that significant comments were made in that report about the need for us to look at alternate means of getting energy in our country and looking at the importance of renewables and looking at the importance of each of us taking responsibility in this space.
There are opportunities. We need to ensure that we look at and understand what the realities are in our community and that we accept that we need to take action. One of those actions, one of the many actions, is looking at how we can have alternate ways of using and finding energy in our country. That's already on the agenda. But Australia, and my own state of Queensland, is not immune from the international impacts of climate change, and we must be part of any solution, any action, to make our country's response stronger and to keep not just current generations safe, not just our current geography safe, but our world and our families into the future.
The climate talks in Poland are happening right now:
Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change. If we don't take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.
Those are not my words. They are the words of David Attenborough at the climate talks in Poland right now.
In the words of David Attenborough: 'This is a matter of life and death. The world's people have spoken, the message is clear and time is running out. You, the decision-makers, must act now.' We know the science is clear. We know that the coalition is dominated by science deniers and climate deniers. They are a lost cause. So my appeal is to the Labor Party right now.
In 2010 we worked with the Labor Party, cooperatively, to put a price on carbon. We had a Prime Minister who rose to the challenge. We established the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and we established the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. We had a plan. It is time to re-establish a plan, and at the heart of that plan has to be a pathway to stop the burning of coal. The burning of coal contributes to catastrophic climate damage. It knows no borders. Whether the coal was dug up here in Australia and burnt overseas makes no difference to the atmosphere and oceans, who don't care where the coal is burnt. Just because this coal is burnt overseas and doesn't appear in our national greenhouse gas figures doesn't make it less of a threat. The great majority of what we dig up is burnt overseas, but it pollutes our atmosphere nonetheless.
We have a choice right now. We are the first generation to experience the impact of climate change and the last generation that will be able to do something about it. The choice is clear: we need to make sure that the Adani coalmine never gets built. I urge Bill Shorten and the Labor Party to review and revoke those environmental approvals. I urge them to work with us to prevent another new coalmine from ever being built in this country and to embrace the challenge that comes with making the transition to a clean, renewable energy economy.
The proposition put forward in today's debate by the Greens is that Australia's coal exports are one of the most significant contributors to human induced climate change globally. To assist debate, I'm actually going to try to put a figure on this contribution. Human induced climate change, to the extent it occurs, is a function of cumulative anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide emissions, over at least the last 100 years. So, first we need to recognise that for the first half of the last 100 years Australia's coal production and exports were negligible. Moving to the present day, Australia now produces around seven per cent of the world's annual coal production, and we export around three-quarters of our production. Globally, coal accounts for around a third of annual total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. So, in answer to the Greens proposition, Australia's coal exports make less than a one per cent contribution to climate change. This reflects the fact that Australia's coal exports made next to no contribution to cumulative anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions for the last 100 years, and are making a less than two per cent contribution to annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions now.
Let's talk about the two elephants in the room, China and India. China and India produce more than half of the world's annual coal production, and consume more than two-thirds of the world's annual coal consumption. Together, China and India account for more than a third of annual anthropogenic global greenhouse gas emissions. Given this enormous footprint, the cessation of Australia's coal exports would not contribute to mitigating human induced climate change to any realistic extent. The only way to mitigate human induced climate change would be to push for an agreement involving a commitment from China and India to not increase their annual emissions by many billions of tonnes over the coming decade.
To put their emission increases into context, remember that Australia's total annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are around half a billion tonnes. No-one is pretending it would be easy to strike an agreement involving a commitment from China and India to not increase their emissions by billions of tonnes; such an agreement would need to offer net benefits to each country that signs up, including China and India. This would mean either that at any reduction in business-as-usual emissions in China and India would need to be small, or that China and India would need to be paid off by the rest of the world to do more. Any irrational resistance to expanding nuclear power would need to be jettisoned. Only this sort of agreement would allow Chinese and Indian emissions to ease off, while allowing the people of China and India to continue their march out of poverty. Under such an agreement, demand for our coal could well fall, but the silver lining for us would be that demand for our uranium should skyrocket.
The issue of China and India's anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is a wicked problem, but it is absolutely fundamental to any practical action targeting human induced climate change. Those who purport to care about human induced climate change but who say and do nothing about China and India increasing their annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by billions of tonnes are clearly not primarily concerned about climate change; they are more concerned about self-flagellation—or, more accurately, about everyone around them being flagellated. They are suffering a neurosis, and they shouldn't be in charge. Maybe they belong in an institution, but that institution shouldn't be the parliament.
We have an urgency motion today with the usual hyperbole we expect day in, day out from the Australian Greens. Instead of using emotion, let's look at a couple of facts. Australia accounts for 0.005 per cent—it's a really small number—of global CO2 emissions and just 0.011 per cent of global coal emissions. Australia's contribution to global thermal coal production also is just under five per cent. Emissions per person in Australia are at their lowest level in 28 years, while we have unprecedented investment in renewable energy and one of the highest rates of household solar uptake in the world. Further, not only did Australia beat its first Kyoto target, by 128 million tonnes, but we will also beat our 2030 targets, halving our emissions per person. Australia's lithium reserves for batteries are among the world's largest. When all of that is taken into account, it becomes pretty clear the Greens are far more concerned with making emotive statements than they are with providing any tangible evidence. They're more interested in whipping up hysteria than in real environmentalism that can practically coexist with economic progress.
At the same time, we are exporting low-emissions sources around the world, which are supporting global emissions reductions. For instance, Australia's black coal emits fewer emissions than brown coal, because it tends to be high in energy and low in ash, meaning that less coal needs to be used for each unit of electricity generation. As such, Australia's high-grade coal is environmentally better coal than that which you can get from other countries with lower-grade deposits. Additionally, our LNG exports produce 50 to 60 per cent lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity output than coal. As a result of these exports, countries such as Japan, China, and Korea will save 130 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
However, for those people who are really concerned about emissions, it is important to note that our environmental action must not come at the expense of economic growth, of rising living standards and of low electricity prices. For example, in my home state of Queensland coal is a critical contributor to exports and jobs. The royalties provided by the coal industry subsidise a whole range of important public services such as health, education and infrastructure. For every one person who is employed in the mining industry there are four to five flow-on jobs created in Queensland. Further, in 2017-18 coal contributed over $61 billion to the Australian economy—totalling 15 per cent of our exports. It was the second-largest export from this country.
Praying for the demise of Australia's coal export industry is like praying for a monumental black hole in our economy. It would be very interesting to hear how the Greens party would pay for the substantial increases they'd like to see in government expenditure in the absence of the revenue that is provided year in, year out by Australian coal.
It's plain that coal plays an important role in Australia's economic prosperity, and it remains an important part of the energy mix, providing low-cost and reliable generation. It may not always be so, but for now promises of 100 per cent renewable energy are more than unrealistic; they're dishonest. It's simply not technically feasible on current technology. So the coalition offers a practical energy policy, which recognises the realities we face, while Mr Shorten and Labor are stuck in the past with their batteries policy, a throwback to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, where, on the promise of a $2,000 subsidy, they'd ask families struggling to pay their quarterly bills for power, to then shell out $10,000 to $20,000 of their own money to put in a household battery. How can anyone seriously believe that ordinary Australian families have the resources to be able to engage in such a strategy?
I remember the last time Labor offered to install things in households around Australia; it led to burning rooftops and dead tradesmen. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
With world electricity demand expected to rise by 63.5 per cent by 2040, coal will remain crucial in ensuring the lights turn on for millions of people around the world. It's a critical part of world energy generation and I hope it continues well into the future to be an important part of our economic landscape, as it sustains our economy, creates jobs and brings the benefit of low-cost dependable energy to those who can least afford virtue signalling for the cities.
Adani or the future of my generation? That is the fundamental question which confronts this chamber as we consider the question tonight. For we cannot have both. We cannot have the mega mine, we cannot have the destroyed reef and we cannot have the emissions and address climate change. We cannot safeguard the future of this nation's young people while digging this dirty mine.
The choice for the Australian Greens is simple. Back young people. Invest in the future. Get coal money which runs this place the hell out of it. See our reef bloom. See our rivers run clean. See our cities powered by wind and wave and solar. Close the book on a dirty industrial technology, and close the gate to a corrupt foreign multinational which has no business doing business in Australia. This course of action is clear to us because we exist as a political movement to think not of the next election cycle but of the next generation. I urge the chamber to join us in this endeavour. (Time expired)
If Senator McKim believes that Australian coal is one of the most significant contributions to climate change, he should stop travelling in cars, watching TV, flying in planes and using electricity, and he should throw his mobile into the bin. All of those things have been given to him via coal-fired power. The hypocrites who condemn coal need to understand that coal is used to boil water that in turn creates electricity. The Apple products that I'm sure the Greens are all using are made in China using cheap coal-fired power. And the coal that isn't used for energy is used to make steel. All those wind turbines, the ones the Greens actually love so much, are made from coal. It takes 220 tonnes of coal to make steel to make one wind turbine. All the steel in the wind turbines and solar farms making the so-called clean energy is made from coal. We have countries around the world laughing at us as we destroy our industries and manufacturing, while they reap the rewards.
Right now, there is a global get-together in Poland, where Turkey has officially requested to be downgraded to a developing country status so they, as well as China, can milk money from gullible countries like Australia. We are being taken for fools and the Greens are happy to play along. Fearmongering is not the answer. You talk about the Great Barrier Reef. Well, coral bleaching was first detected in the mid-1930s; that's nearly 85 years ago. We have had coalmining in this country all those years, yet the Great Barrier Reef is still there. They think that, just because Adani is starting up now, the reef will be dead by 2050. What they're telling the people of Australia is a load of rubbish.
So I say to the Greens: get your facts right. Listen to scientists. Science from the past should be reviewed again so we have the true facts and not fearmongering. (Time expired)
The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Waters on a matter of public urgency be agreed to.
On behalf of the Chair of the Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education, I present the report on the future of stillbirth research and education in Australia, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Bajinda yamalu yinda, ngara Yanyuwa li-anthawirriyarra. I would like to acknowledge the traditional lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and acknowledge this is an incredibly historic day for the Australian parliament. I have with me at the pleasure of The President and The Deputy President a coolamon, which, in First Nations People's way, is important for our babies. It is also important for other parts of First Nations culture—that is, for food gathering, for water, for life giving. I have the symbol of this symbol of the coolamon with me today to acknowledge especially the parents and families who are here in the Senate to witness this historic occasion, but also to say thank you to each and every one of you and all those listening and watching across Australia who couldn't be here but are here in spirit, just like your children are with us, your babies. In my language we call it li-ardabirri or bardada and the spirit of your bardada is here with us in the Senate, in the Australian parliament. It is so significant what you have done in sharing your personal stories and journey with us, the committee, and with Australia. We are going to change and make a difference across this country, and I thank you from my heart to yours for being so open, and for your babies, who are with us too.
I also want to thank and acknowledge the members of this committee: deputy chair Senator Jim Molan, Senator Janet Rice, Senator Catryna Bilyk, Senator Lucy Gichuhi and most especially Senator Kristina Keneally, whose advocacy and passionate perseverance in guiding and directing our parliament to this point has been so important. We decided from the outset that this had to be a sacred journey, carrying our babies, remembering and honouring the spirits who have passed but also the spirits of our babies who are yet to come. There had be to a sacredness to this journey, and I thank each and every Senate committee member for holding that, for holding those babies and holding the sacredness of this important report to the Australian parliament.
Stillbirths affect over 2,000 Australian families each year, and, for women from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, the rate is double that of other Australian women. Despite advances in medical care and treatment, the rate of stillbirth in Australia has not declined over the past 20 years, and too many of those stillbirths are deemed to be unexplained. This is not acceptable. There is a culture of silence around stillbirth. It is a hidden tragedy, with personal, social and financial consequences. It needs to be regarded as a public health issue, with economic as well as social costs on a community level. And, of course, the cost on a very personal level is not quantifiable.
Our report highlights that stillbirth will directly and indirectly cost the economy $681 million between 2016 and 2020. It examines the risk factors which relate not only to individual, maternal health factors but also to issues such as geographical location and race. Around 33 per cent of all stillbirths in Australia happen to women who live in regional and remote areas of our country. According to Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, the further away women are from a major city, the higher the rate of stillbirth. And, as I've said, the rate for First Nations women is double that. There are higher stillbirth rates amongst culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia, so our women from non-English-speaking backgrounds suffer a great deal in silence.
There is a clear need to improve the cultural protocols around dealing with families who have suffered stillbirth. The committee heard very disturbing evidence about six stillborn babies of Indigenous descent who remained in the morgue at the Katherine Hospital for a number of years—six years, in some cases. Evidence was presented in relation to the difficulty of contacting families who lived in very remote communities and the lack of resources available for locating and working with bereaved families, and it was noted that there may also be financial issues.
Another key issue raised by witnesses and submitters in relation to employment matters concerned leave entitlements for parents who experienced a stillbirth. We heard evidence from women who had been made redundant while recovering from a stillbirth. A key recommendation of this committee was that section 77A of the Fair Work Act 2009 and provisions relating to stillbirth in the National Employment Standards be reviewed and amended to ensure that provisions for stillbirth and miscarriage are clear and consistent across all employers and that legislative entitlements to paid parental leave are unambiguous in recognising and providing support for employees who have experienced stillbirth. This report calls for a national stillbirth action plan that aims to reduce the rate of stillbirth over the next three years by 20 per cent.
I'd also like to acknowledge the work of Sophie Dunstone and her team in the secretariat.
This inquiry was certainly the most difficult that I've been on, both in my time in the federal parliament and in the Northern Territory parliament, because we are carrying deeply the very real stories that impact Australians in this country. You know what, Madam Deputy President? We can make a difference with this report. Our parliament can make a difference, and this country can make a difference for all Australian families. I commend the report to the parliament.
I'd like to join with Senator Malarndirri McCarthy in acknowledging the extraordinary debt that every Australian owes to each witness who submitted evidence to the stillbirth research and education select committee, and that is simply staggering. These parents who have lost a child revealed to a group of strangers the details—clinical and emotional—of their tragedy. The experiences and recommendations, with the input of clinicians and other experts, will indisputably reduce the number of future Australian families who endure this torture—and torture it is.
I volunteered for this committee because, on 12 October 2007, my wife, Anne, and I received a phone call; our daughter Sarah, then 26 years of age, had gone into labour with her and her husband Gavin's second child, a brother or sister for beautiful little Sophie, who was 16 months old at the time. Plans were made for us to hurtle across the Hay Plain to get to Nyah, in Victoria, in the next few days. Our daughter Sarah organised the last of her freezer meals before she and Gav drove into Swan Hill hospital. It hadn't been a difficult pregnancy. Sarah had a perfectly normal ultrasound less than 48 hours earlier, so it's fair to say there was much joviality and excitement anticipating Gavin's next call with an update or, if we were really lucky, with the happy news.
Sarah and Gavin were told on arrival at the hospital that there was concern for the baby, and they were rushed to emergency. They were rushed there for a scan which confirmed that the baby had died. Sarah became hysterical for a time, urging the staff to take the baby by emergency caesarean section and attempt resuscitation. Some 30 minutes later, they were composed enough—I hope I'm composed enough—to phone both sets of parents and inform us that their daughter had to be delivered normally and that the labour could not be accelerated. Emily Charlotte Sutton was born at 8.07 pm, believed to be approximately 40 hours after she had died.
The recommendations of this report will spare many Australian parents from the unimaginable grief of your baby going to the hospital mortuary instead of to the nursery, of making autopsy arrangements, of postnatal mothers being supported to walk through a cemetery to choose a plot for their baby, of a funeral with the smallest of white coffins being carried by a shell-shocked family member and of returning home to a house full of baby paraphernalia. That's just the blur of the first week or 10 days. Having found the strength to do all this, Sarah, Gavin, all our witnesses at this inquiry and every other traumatised, bereaved parent then has to find the strength to get out of bed and function each day for the rest of their lives. In many cases, families, friends and countless members of bereaved parents' communities gather magnificently around a mother, father or couple who have had a stillbirth. Love, kindness and generosity can be extended readily, but it is not necessarily guaranteed to provide a degree of comfort or appropriate support. It gives me exquisite pleasure to recognise that this report will reduce the occasions on which our families and communities endure this pain and rally in response to it.
As well as her big sister, Sophie, now 12 years old, Emily has a little brother, Angus, who is eight. Emily is loved and remembered every single day.
The committee heard about the significant and far-reaching impacts of stillbirth in Australia. As Senator McCarthy said, stillbirth affects over 2,000 Australian families every year. For every 137 women who reach 20 weeks pregnancy, one will experience a stillbirth.
This report is all about a national commitment, as our chair said. In countries where a national commitment has been made to reducing the rate of stillbirth, policies and practices have been changed and stillbirth rates have declined significantly. The committee concluded that Australia needs a consistent and coordinated approach to stillbirth research and education at a national policy level and recommended that a national stillbirth action plan be developed, with the aim of reducing the rate of stillbirth in Australia by 20 per cent over the next three years.
I would like to conclude by acknowledging the work and leadership of the chair of the committee, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, and the secretariat of the inquiry, Sophie, and her great team, who produced excellent results. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Senator Kristina Keneally, who predicted that this would be an inquiry with no bad guys—and she has been perfectly right. This is how the parliament should work.
'No bad guys' is exactly how it was. I really want to start by thanking everyone, because it was such a journey that we were all on. It was a journey for the committee and we worked so well together. It really was about bringing together, across the parties, people who are passionate about achieving change. I particularly want to thank the people who had the bravery to submit—those who shared their stories in writing and those who had the bravery to come and present in person and tell their stories to us, knowing that by sharing their stories they were making a difference. It was hard. The inquiry was triggering for virtually everybody who was involved in hearing those stories and the emotional journeys that people had gone through, hearing the awful stories of loss and wondering how people could get through that and share it. For all of us, we knew there was going to be some good that came out of it; that there was purpose in it and purpose in us all being able to work together to learn from these experiences and the stories that we all shared to get some better outcomes in reducing the rates of stillbirth in Australia.
I really do want to thank Senator McCarthy for her leadership and the way that she conducted this inquiry, which was a genuine collaborative approach of creating a space where everybody's story and input was welcomed, whether it was from the people submitting or the people who were part of the committee. I want to thank Senator Keneally for her leadership and drive initially in making sure that this inquiry happened. It is an important moment for the Senate. It's an important process that we've gone through. It truly is representative of the Senate working at its best.
There are some important things that we learnt during the inquiry that, for me personally, I was shocked to hear. Just the stark rate of six babies a day dying in Australia of stillbirth was shocking, and so was the fact related to that—that your average person in Australia doesn't know that, with the level of taboo and silence there is around stillbirth. The very fact of us having this committee inquiry is tackling that and is helping to break that silence. That is something important that I think we have all learnt—the extent of families suffering the trauma of stillbirth, and the need to be able to talk about it and to give people the space to talk about it. That in itself will reduce the rate of stillbirth.
We learnt that there has been no change in the rate of stillbirth in Australia over 20 years, but other countries are doing significant things that are reducing the rate. That gives us hope, because we know that there are some mostly fairly straightforward measures that we can take that will have a real impact on changing the rate and reducing that level of trauma and suffering.
We learnt about the level of inequality and how, if you're an Indigenous woman in an Indigenous family or if you're a woman from a non-English-speaking background, you have much greater rates of stillbirth than the rest of Australians. That's just not fair. We need to be doing something about that. The recommendations of this inquiry go to some of those things—having an awareness strategy and really raising the profile so that people can talk about their experiences. That in itself means that, when a woman is pregnant, she can feel that she can learn about prevention and the things that need to happen in order to reduce the risk that she is going to have a stillbirth. In fact, we learnt that there are some very simple, straightforward things like changing the way you sleep and having a process of continuity of care—simple things like measuring the growth of the baby so you have measurements that are accurate and continuing that throughout the pregnancy so that any reduction in fetal growth can be picked up. That will make a significant difference. At the moment, we're just not doing that effectively in Australia.
We learnt about the importance of more research and the importance of collecting good data. Again, it's just about getting things coordinated and nationally organised so that that data is there so we can learn from the data. In particular, the main thing I took from the inquiry, which was reflected in the way the inquiry operated listening to people, was listening to women, their stories and their intuition being valued. That in itself is going to make a huge difference. Clearly having a model of care, having continuity of care, and having the people who are caring for the woman during her pregnancy actually listening to and being able to have evidence from the woman and the family really maximises the chances of a healthy outcome. That continuity of care in itself was something that I really strongly focused on during the inquiry. To me, it was really important to make sure that that in itself was going to help women be heard and have their wisdom and their knowledge valued, meaning that we were more likely to have positive outcomes.
Thank you to everyone who was involved and all of the committee members. Thank you so much to the people who submitted to the inquiry. You have taken part in and we have all been part of a very significant outcome for this parliament in this process.
Two hundred and fifty-two days ago, the Senate voted to establish the Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education. In that short period of time—in just the eight months that have passed since the Senate inquiry began—1,512 babies have been stillborn in Australia. The report we table here today is a first. It is the first national investigation and report into the impact of stillbirth on Australian families and the Australian economy and the first national set of recommendations on what we as a nation can and should do to save babies' lives.
Six babies a day are stillborn in Australia, and the key finding from this report is that we can do better. Our rate of stillbirth is significantly higher than similar nations such as New Zealand, the UK, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries, and while the rate of stillbirth has declined over the past 15 years in countries with similar levels of economic performance and educational achievement as Australia, the rate in Australia has stayed the same.
I will confess: there were times I grew incredibly angry as we undertook this work. The anger resulted from frustration because there are some clear, simple and relatively inexpensive steps that we can take in order to prevent and reduce stillbirth in Australia, and we have simply not done so. I didn't grow angry in any partisan way. This has not been a partisan inquiry. The Senate voted across all parties to support the Senate stillbirth inquiry, and I'm pleased to report that this is a report with multiparty support. I pay tribute to my colleagues: the committee chair, Malarndirri McCarthy, who led us with wisdom and grace; the deputy chair, Jim Molan, who was a pleasure to work with, and, strangely enough, whose military experience at times actually gave us great insight; and Senators Janet Rice, Lucy Gichuhi and Catryna Bilyk, who brought great patience, understanding, compassion and intellectual rigour to this work. I also note we were incredibly well supported by Sophie Dunstone and the committee secretariat, and I thank them for their thoughtful efforts.
The anger I felt wasn't directed at anything other than just grief that babies had died in this country when we could have saved them. And why didn't we? It was because for so long we have been understandably hesitant to speak about stillbirth. It's a particular sadness, a singular grief; one so hard to fathom that I can understand that, collectively, as a country we have considered stillbirth too sad to talk about as a public health problem.
This inquiry marks a significant moment. It means the country can no longer stay silent about stillbirth. It also marks a point at which we can no longer say that we don't know what we can do to help reduce stillbirth and save babies' lives. Broadly speaking, this report makes recommendations in three key areas. First, prevention: there are several recommendations that go to how we can help families and clinicians reduce the risk of stillbirth and know when we should intervene to save babies' lives. This includes national education, community campaigns, continuity-of-care models, and education and training for clinicians. Second, investigation: this includes investigating and understanding why stillbirth occurs, in order to better advise families in subsequent pregnancies and to recommend changes to clinical practice. These recommendations include investigating stillbirth properly, which we do not do, and that includes pathology and with autopsies. As a nation, we need to record information about stillbirths consistently and fully in the national dataset and make sure that data is made available to individual families, as well as in aggregate form to healthcare providers and researchers, as quickly as we can. Our recommendations also speak to the need for longer term funding certainty for research. Third, supporting families and clinicians after a stillbirth occurs: this includes care after a stillbirth to support families emotionally and, importantly, to ensure parents have access to paid parental leave and to help co-workers to support these parents when they return to work. Importantly, this report calls for a national stillbirth action plan that starts us on this effort by aiming to reduce the rate of stillbirth over the next three years by 20 per cent. This would be a remarkable achievement after 20 years of stagnation and inertia that has meant that so many lives have been lost and many more irreversibly changed.
Finally, I want to thank every person who made a submission, everyone who participated in this inquiry. I especially note the Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth, Stillbirth Foundation Australia, Still Aware, Maternity Consumer Network and SANDS and Red Nose Australia. I also want to thank the pathologists, the doctors, the midwives and the nurses who appeared before us. I particularly want to thank the parents and the grandparents who shared their grief so openly and bravely in public submissions. I honour all the parents who came before us to tell their stories in public hearings. Each one of you showed such generosity and love. To those parents who made submissions, to those parents who gave public evidence and to those parents who are here today: your children—Sandy, Annabelle, Elliott, Leilani, Patrick, Hope, Grace, Matilda, Evelyn, Harriet, Austen, Soraya, Lia, Rose, Coralie, Liam, Jonah, Hamish, Lincoln, Kayla, Jordan, Emma, Henrietta, Bethany, Archie, Angelo, Daniel, Senator Bilyk's son Timothy and my daughter Caroline—are lost to us, but this report is part of their legacy. Thank you. So much sadness, but today we begin to hope that things will change. I commend the report.
I welcome this report, and I was very keen to participate in this committee because, whatever policy changes arise from it, the inquiry has brought the topic of stillbirth out into the open. On 2 July 1983 I gave birth to a still baby. His name was Timothy Robert Bilyk and he's buried in Gungahlin Cemetery. I make a point of that because that was 35 years ago. I doubt there's been a day in my husband's or my life that we have not thought about him. I doubt that people realise that, in those 35 years, the statistics have not changed. To me, the importance of this inquiry was to ensure that we manage to change those statistics.
The committee's report refers to a culture of silence around stillbirth, and the first step in addressing this tragedy is breaking that silence and tackling some of the myths and misconceptions. For example, stillbirth is more common than you may think. We've heard that around 2,000 stillbirths occur in Australia every year—six a day. That's six broken families every day. It's 30 times more common than SIDS.
The evidence submitted to this inquiry has shown that very often stillbirth is, to a degree, preventable. There are known risk factors as well as strategies to reduce those risks. We know that the risk can be reduced because we've seen from evidence overseas that, through education and awareness, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway and the Netherlands have been able to dramatically reduce their stillbirth rates. The risk of stillbirth needs to be discussed with all expectant mothers, and there are practical things pregnant women can do to reduce their risk, such as sleeping on their side and monitoring foetal movements. Improved general maternal health also reduces the risk, as some of the risk factors include obesity, smoking, diabetes and hypertension. These messages can be disseminated through a public education campaign, improved antenatal education and mobile apps to help monitor foetal movements.
Another consequence of the silence around stillbirth is the way that it isolates mothers and the other family members who have experienced it. Stillbirth can be just as traumatic for families affected by it as the death of any other child. Unfortunately, the standard of bereavement care for those affected by stillbirth still varies quite dramatically from hospital to hospital, but breaking the culture of silence helps us to better support families. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins—they are all affected by stillbirth, particularly when they're also facing extra pressures with costs such as maternity care, the funeral and counselling. These pressures can be compounded by difficulty getting paid leave and the lack of specific provisions for stillbirth related leave. More than 50 per cent of stillbirths have no known cause, so we need more research as well as a coordinated and consistent approach to collecting data nationally—something that the inquiry highlighted as seriously lacking.
While I have little time today to go over them in detail, the committee's recommendations address the issues I've just outlined and are tied together with the recommendations for a national stillbirth action plan. I'm really pleased and proud that Labor has already led on these issues with our announcement in October of a $5 million package that we will deliver in government. This package includes: a national stillbirth strategy; an education campaign to encourage pregnant women to sleep on their sides; stillbirth research; and a free app to monitor the foetal heart and maternal sleeping. The strategy will be informed by this inquiry and developed in consultation with health professionals and, more importantly, with families who have experienced stillbirth.
I would also like to thank Sophie Dunstone and her committee team for their amazing work throughout this inquiry. Sophie seems to get some of the not-so-nice inquiries to deal with. I've worked with her on other committees, and she always does such a sterling job. She manages to bring people together and the witnesses together in an amazing way. Thank you, Sophie and your team. I was only a participating member on this committee; I wasn't a full member, but I did get to as many hearings as I could. To the other members of the committee: Malarndirri, you did an amazing job chairing this Committee sometimes committees aren't necessarily that smooth, but I think trying to improve things for parents of stillborn babies and to reduce stillbirths has really had an impact on all of us. Kristina, thank you for bringing it to the chamber. I will always remember your Caroline. Even though I didn't meet her, I will always remember her. Senator Rice, thank you as well and, Senator Molan, thank you.
One of the comments that really hit me and stayed with me since those hearings was by one of the mothers. I'm sorry, I can't remember who it was. She said, 'Talking about stillbirth doesn't necessarily mean it will happen to you.' That really hit home to me. It's like: that is so true. But preparing parents—mothers and fathers—for the fact that it might happen has been disregarded for so long. We really need to make sure that the recommendations in this report are acted on. All I can say is: thank you to everyone in the gallery and to the other witnesses and people who submitted. You weren't alone. We were on your journey with you. Thank you for your courage and for your bravery in telling your stories. It wasn't in vain. Thank you.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On half of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, I present a corrigendum to the second report on the rollout of the NBN in rural and regional areas.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourth report of 2018, Referrals made August and September 2018.
I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into mental health services in rural and remote Australia, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This is a very comprehensive report looking at the accessibility and quality of mental health services in rural and remote Australia. I'm going to keep my comments brief because there are a number of reports to table, and I know Senator O'Neill wants to make a contribution. Senator O'Neill and I referred this matter to the committee inquiry. Before I continue, I would like to thank all our witnesses, who did such a superb job sharing, in some cases, very personal experiences. I would like to thank all those who made a submission, and I'd also like to thank the secretariat.
The committee makes 18 recommendations about how to fix accessibility and the quality of services for people in rural and remote Australia. We held 16 hearings. We went to rural and remote Australia and made sure that we listened to people in rural and remote Australia and got evidence from people in those areas. There's absolutely no doubt that people in rural and remote Australia are not getting access to the services that they need and deserve. It is absolutely clear that there are some fundamental changes that need to be made. There are many barriers to people being able to access services in rural and remote Australia. Those include not being able to get access to the workforce in particular, and the workforce not being properly trained in support for rural and remote Australia; the nature of the social determinants of health of people in rural and remote Australia, the lack of access to 24-hour services; the lack of access to the right services; the very significant burden of mental health in many areas; and the cultural competence of the services that are available. There is also the fact that people have to go to emergency—and, in some cases, need to be drugged in order that they can be transported to the nearest largest centre—to get access to services, the fact that the emergency rooms in many regional areas are simply not designed adequately to deal with people who are having a mental health crisis and the fact that there is not appropriate funding available to properly implement the stepped approach to mental health that is now being very strongly supported by funding bodies and government services but which is not being implemented effectively through the services available through the PHNs.
So our first recommendation is that a national rural and remote mental health strategy be developed to address the low rates of access to services, workforce shortages, the high rate of suicide—which is almost double in remote areas—cultural realities, language barriers and the social determinants of mental health. That strategy needs to be developed, then implemented, and there needs to be regular reporting to the government, with those reports being tabled in parliament. We need to make sure the NDIS is working properly for psychosocial disabilities. We heard many accounts of the NDIS not properly meeting rural and remote needs, particularly the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is absolutely critical that we make sure that services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, that they're developed with them, that we have and develop a peer workforce and that we recognise the cultural competence that our First Nations peoples have in dealing with and addressing mental health. So often we heard accounts of providers and the workforce arriving in a remote community, going straight to the person who is the usual person of support in a remote community and asking them for help—an unpaid person who very often is bearing the responsibility for and supporting so many people in that community. We need to recognise that. We need to support those persons and actually make sure that we're paying for people who are providing that sort of support, because they are providing very vital services in remote communities.
In the very short time that we have available, I'm not able to do justice to this report. I beg everybody to read this report and I beg government to have a very close look at the recommendations. I will make sure that I allow time for other people to speak on this report and other reports.
I do concur with the remarks that Senator Siewert has already put on the record. I'm delighted to let the Senate know that the Community Affairs References Committee has landed a unanimous report on mental health services in rural and remote Australia after 16 amazing hearings, which took us travelling to nearly every state and territory, from Derby in WA to Mount Isa in Queensland, to hear firsthand of the service gaps that are, in some cases, cavernous and gaping.
We spoke to locals from very diverse backgrounds, including mental health consumers, farmers, miners, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, local councils, teachers, nurses, doctors, academics and committed volunteers at the frontline of suicide prevention. I want to thank each and every one of you for your critical evidence and for the courage to come forward and share with us what were often very personal and at times traumatic experiences.
Whilst the prevalence of mental illness is similar across urban, rural and remote Australia, there is a much higher level of need in rural and remote locations, complicated by lower rates of access to mental health services in those contexts. Sadly, as remoteness increases, so does the rate of suicide. Between 2010 and 2017, the rate of suicide in remote areas was almost double that of major cities, while the rate in very remote regions was almost 2.5 times that of major cities. One of the things that struck me in this inquiry is that we kept hearing about people who were more afraid of living than they were of dying.
The barriers that exist range from the obvious, such as the actual presence or availability of services and health professionals in an area, to the more subtle, such as the attitudes towards mental health within the community or the effects of social determinants of health, such as socioeconomic status or employment. I'm strongly of the belief that one's location should not affect the capacity to access quality services, especially in these days when digital capacity, if the technology is stable and affordable enough, can facilitate ongoing, stable therapeutic relationships with a health practitioner of a person's choice in another state or context. The other thing is that access through digital means, supported by great local physical support, allows people to get around the perceived stigma that still remains with regard to mental health in our public health conversations these days.
The committee made a swathe of recommendations to improve the quality and accessibility of mental health services in rural and remote communities. For confidence in certainty and continuity of care, we've recommended that governments at all levels should develop longer minimum contract length terms. In rural and remote areas, this is absolutely essential to attracting and retaining a suitable workforce who can build over time the quality of therapeutic relationships necessary to deliver effective outcomes from treatment. Some contracts we heard of, and increasingly in the course of this government, were for just 12 months at a time. The impact of such a choice by the government is devastating because services are simply being removed from community.
We've also recommended, very importantly, that all primary health networks have a First Nations member on the board. This representative is crucial for fostering greater trust, connectivity and culturally appropriate care. It was horrifying to hear that translation services were simply denied. The assumption was that somebody who was expressing mental ill health and who was finally able to connect with a service provider had to bring their own family member to talk about matters that were deeply personal, because the funding and the staffing of interpreter services simply didn't exist. We know, sadly, that suicide continues to disproportionately impact Indigenous communities, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people twice as likely to die by suicide.
I'd like to close with a few necessary and sincere acknowledgments. I'd like to thank the chair, Senator Siewert. We enjoyed a great period of conversation with many people after the hearings; there just wasn't enough time to hear everything they really wanted to put on the record. I'd particularly like to thank my Labor colleagues on the team with me who participated in the various hearings, including: Senator Pratt in Western Australia; Senator Watt, that man of action, in the Queensland area; and Senator Polley and Senator Brown for their presence at hearings in Tasmania. Together, we've worked towards a really great outcome. If these recommendations are adopted in their entirety, they will provide a vital change that's required in our rural and remote communities.
I also want to thank the secretariat for bringing this report together and for travelling with us across the breadth of this great country. Their hard work, assistance and dedication throughout have been fundamental in this report being a record of the great state of need in our community, at this time, and delivered here today. I'd also like to thank the state government bodies, the mental health service providers, academics, peak representative organisations, local PHNs and community members who provided evidence to the committee, for without their submissions and firsthand accounts, we would not have the full breadth of information about the quality and accessibility of mental health services. Thank you to those who shared their lived experiences with us, and I am hopeful that our report can play a vital part in ensuring the change necessary to deliver access to services, for people, where they live. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted. Debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Economics References Committee on non-conforming building products, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This report completes the long-running Senate Economics References Committee inquiry and follows three interim reports into nonconforming building products since the inquiry was referred in June 2015. This inquiry has run over two parliaments, during which time the committee received 164 submissions and several supplementary submissions. I want to thank all the stakeholders who contributed evidence to this inquiry through written submissions and through the 10 public hearings, spanning Canberra, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Sydney and Adelaide. The committee has been across the country grappling with issues troubling the construction industry and consumers. I also want to thank the secretariat and all the staff who have contributed to this report. Thank you for your diligence and your sustained efforts over the past few years.
The final report today builds on our learnings from the cladding and asbestos interim reports and incorporates a broader evidence base in setting out a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenge of nonconforming and noncompliant building products. It also supports the compliance concerns raised in the Shergold-Weir Building Ministers' Forum report, Building Confidence: Improving the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement systems for the building and construction industry across Australia, and it draws attention to the progress being made in dealing with nonconforming products in some jurisdictions.
Specifically, the committee was encouraged by the proactive work undertaken by the Queensland government in its new legislation designed to strengthen the chain of responsibility for the importation and distribution of building materials. As such, recommendation 6 of this report suggests that other jurisdictions move to implement similar legislation, to ensure responsibility and accountability are spread more evenly across supply chains. By and large, many of the 13 recommendations of this final report echo those recommendations put forward in the interim reports.
The committee is cognisant that the Building Ministers' Forum is already moving on some of these issues, as highlighted by the Shergold and Weir report. Nevertheless, the committee would encourage both the government and the Building Ministers' Forum to increase the level of momentum in implementing these recommendations and, moreover, those recommendations that have been raised previously. These include expediting mandatory third-party certification for high-risk products, including a national register of noncompliant products if feasible, and the introduction of a national licensing scheme. A simple change that the committee has put forward previously and again in this report is a recommendation we strongly believe would assist stakeholders—to consider making all Australian standards freely available. Where feasible, all forms of legal requirements should be freely available so that stakeholders can inform themselves adequately of their obligations under the relevant law.
In conclusion, the issue of nonconforming and noncompliant building products is a very sobering one. It strikes at the very core of community issues such as public safety. It is literally a matter of life and death. Everyday Australians place their trust in the product, supply and construction industries to professionally provide a built environment that we can enjoy safely together. However, this inquiry has shown that too many times Australians have been let down. Asbestos continues to come into this country. There are new concerns about the amount of lead in our drinking water systems. There's flammable cladding on buildings across the country, and the blame game is only getting louder.
It's time that the Liberal-National government steps up to the plate and tackles these problems head-on or calls an election and lets Australians decide who they trust to take us forward. The federal government can and must play a key role here. We must work with energy and diligence with the state and territory governments to set nationally consistent standards and the bar must be high. The federal government can help coordinate information systems to help detect importation of risky products and where they are installed. Licensing can be fixed and it is Labor who has a plan. To date, I have been disappointed by the attitude of this government on these matters of life and death. It doesn't help when there is a revolving door of ministers. I do hope that, in the remaining months of this parliament, following this report, we see some real progress for the building industry, but, unfortunately, I am not holding my breath, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the use of antimalarial drugs in the Australian Defence Force together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
As chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I'm going to make some remarks. I know I'm on a fairly tight time constraint. It's fair to say that this has been a very complex and challenging inquiry. At the outset, I, along with the other committee members, would like to acknowledge and thank the veterans who shared their stories by appearing at public hearings and providing written submissions. I know that other senators on the committee would like to make some remarks, but that will have to be if the matter appears on the Notice Paper later on.
Suffice to say, it was a bipartisan effort, as most of these efforts are in this very contested space. There are real, visible, emotional and widely held and deeply felt issues and problems, which require careful evaluation and conclusions drawn from evidence taken. The committee, ably resourced by a very good effort as always from the secretariat, has made a number of recommendations to government which, I hope, will be considered carefully. They are bipartisan recommendations, as is quite often the case in these very emotional areas, in some respects, but the evidence has been drawn over a number of hearings. The submissions have been in some cases quite complex. None of the senators on the committee had any medical experience, yet we were faced with significant challenges in interpreting data and the like.
What we've really achieved, I think, is consensus on the way forward. I'm sure that we will not keep all of those who submitted to the committee happy, but the committee was unified in one purpose only. Where we saw people who were suffering as a result of their service, there ought to be a commensurate response from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Australian Defence Force and the medical practitioners in the area. If there were concerns about the complexity of the condition and the treatment that they were able to access, then that should be resolved. We attempted in this inquiry to bring all those streams together, and present some useful recommendations. Hopefully, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will take those on board and conclude that there is, and has been, useful evidence taken; that genuine people have made very genuine efforts to get their story on the public record in cases where it was extremely emotional; that the committee without medical experience has relied on the medical evidence and the medical practitioners in this space; and that there are many individual sectors that have looked at this vexed issue of the use of the tafenoquine and mefloquine. I seek leave to table the speaking notes in respect of this important report and I commend the report to the Senate.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I table a statement on the 2018 Regional Telecommunications Review report and related document, which is the Regional Telecommunications Review, Getting it right out there. I incorporate the document in Hansard.
The statement read as follows—
Tabling of the 2018 Regional Telecommunications Review report
Today I am pleased to table the report of the 2018 Regional Telecommunications Review.
This independent review is conducted every three years to examine how people are using telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia. It provides an opportunity for people living in these areas to have their say about the telecommunications issues that affect them.
The 2018 report is the result of months of research and extensive public consultation by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee (the committee). I would like to put on record my thanks to the committee, which was ably chaired by Mr Sean Edwards, assisted by Ms Wendy Duncan, Ms Johanna Plante, Ms Robbie Sefton, Ms Kylie Stretton and Mr Paul Weller. The committee held 22 public face-to-face consultations across regional Australia and received more than 380 submissions from members of the public and key groups representing regional Australians. The most consultative regional review to date.
In this latest review, the committee focused on what was needed to maximise economic and social benefits for regional, rural and remote communities through the use of digital technologies. The report puts forward 10 useful recommendations for improving telecommunications services and the use of these services in regional, rural and remote Australia. These recommendations are structured into three themes:
The report makes a compelling case that the benefits of increased digital connectivity for the regions are immense. Economic modelling shows that when digital agriculture is fully implemented it could increase the gross value of Australian agricultural production by $20.3 billion, a 25 per cent increase over 2014-15 levels. The greatest gains are expected to come from automation, better tailoring of inputs such as fertiliser and seed, and environmental benefits such as water savings.
Tourism in regional Australia is another growth area. Visitors to the regions have increased on average by 4.1 per cent per annum over the past five years. Research from Tourism Australia shows that 289 million visitor nights were spent in regional Australia in 2017, up from 234 million in 2012. The report includes first-hand examples from regional tourism operators on how technologies have or could improve their businesses.
The Liberal National Government is taking the committee's recommendations very seriously. We are examining options and working with stakeholders to see how to best respond to each recommendation, and ensure meaningful improvements for regional, rural and remote Australians.
Access to Infrastructure
This Liberal National Government has a strong track-record of investing in regional communications, and this is something we will continue into the future. We have invested significantly in regional telecommunications infrastructure, contributing $220 million to the Mobile Black Spot Program and prioritising the regional rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN).
The regional rollout of the NBN is almost complete, and will provide everyone with a fast broadband connection as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. At present, more than 97 per cent of homes, farms and businesses in the regions either can access the network or have construction underway, with Tasmania and the Northern Territory the first jurisdictions to essentially be completed. Seventy per cent of premises in regional Australia will be serviced by fixed-line broadband, and by 2022, the Liberal National Government will have invested more than $3.55 billion to provide fixed wireless services across rural and regional Australia, including ongoing upgrades to ensure services meet the needs of consumers.
One of the key themes of the report is that demand for data is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Our investments in the NBN and Mobile Black Spot Program have led to significant telecommunications improvements for many regional Australians. However, the committee reported that some households have been struggling to access essential services including healthcare, education, and government sites under the current Sky Muster data limits.
I am pleased to say that since the committee's consultations, NBN Co has announced plans to boost data for rural and regional Australians on the Sky Muster satellite service. The new Sky Muster Plus product is scheduled to be available next year for users in NBN Co's satellite network footprint. These plans will no longer count the use of essential internet services towards monthly data allowances. This means when a user exhausts their monthly data allowance, wholesale download speeds will not be slowed down for regular web activities like emails, internet banking, general web browsing and critical software updates. We expect this will go a long way in relieving the data pressures on those using the satellite for educating children, running businesses and engaging with the world online.
The report also highlights that expanding mobile coverage has clear economic and social benefits, as well as public safety benefits for people living, working and travelling in regional and remote areas of Australia. While mobile network operators collectively claim to provide coverage to over 99 per cent of Australia's population, this only equates to around 30 per cent of Australia's landmass.
The Liberal National Government's highly successful Mobile Black Spot Program is helping to address this. To date, the program has leveraged more than $680 million in new investment in mobile infrastructure across Australia. The first three rounds of the program are funding the delivery of 867 new base stations, with applications now open for the fourth round of the program. While there are parts of the country where it may not be viable for mobile network operators to provide coverage, even with Government support, there are opportunities to extend mobile coverage through further rounds of the program.
Safeguarding consumers
In addition to infrastructure, the Liberal National Government understands consumer safeguards are a vital protection for rural and remote people, particularly as they may have limited or no alternative services available to them. The review committee recommended there should be no changes to the current Universal Service Obligation arrangements until there are fit-for-purpose alternative voice options for consumers served by the Sky Muster satellite service. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate this is consistent with Government policy, and will remain so.
The Liberal National Government is driving a significant amount of work to ensure the right consumer safeguards are in place for the modern telecommunications environment. Our Consumer Safeguards Review is being undertaken in three parts: A) redress and complaints handling; B) reliability of telecommunications services; and C) choice and fairness in the retail relationship between the customer and their provider.
The review involves detailed stakeholder consultation and is well advanced. On 15 November, Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield, released a report with 32 recommendations designed to significantly strengthen consumer safeguards for complaint handling and consumer redress in the telecommunications sector. Minister Fifield also released a consultation paper on the second stage of the review, which will examine ways so that consumers and businesses can benefit from improved reliability safeguards for telecommunications services.
Digital Inclusion
Notwithstanding all the work underway, and all the investment being made, the committee found room for improvement. While the Liberal National Government is continuing to invest in high-quality infrastructure, we understand it is only part of the solution. It is essential to ensure people have the right digital skills and consumer protections required to confidently and safely participate in the modern world.
The Digital Transformation Agency is already working to reduce barriers for those engaging with essential Government services online. The Digital Transformation Strategy will focus on three areas:
Digital literacy is essential for businesses as well as individuals. Precision agriculture and other Internet of Things applications will drive the next wave of productivity gains for our farming communities. The Liberal National Government is working with the agricultural sector to encourage the uptake of digital technologies to enable this. We recognise that having the skills to use these applications is as important as good connectivity.
Once again, I would like to thank the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee for their hard work, and the people who gave their time to contribute to the review. The Liberal National Government is carefully considering the committee's report, and will respond to each recommendation in early 2019.
Today, I commend the report of the 2018 Regional Telecommunications Review to the Parliament.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the statement.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Polley, I give notice of her intention to move a motion tomorrow in relation to dementia.
It has been brought to my attention by the New South Wales member for Upper Hunter, Mr Michael Johnsen, of the passing of a wonderful lady, the late Julia Arabella Benham of Quirindi. Mrs Benham passed away on 12 October 2018 at the golden age of—wait for it, Mr Acting Deputy President—109 years, three months and two days. What a long innings.
Mrs Benham was born on the family property, Fairview, at Wallabadah on 10 July 1909. She was the second daughter of Alexander and Emma Ingall, and sister of Rex, Ivy, Harold and Milton. She was educated at two schools on the property, Fairview and Woodton. From there she attended Tamworth High School and, upon completion of her education, she became governess for the Swain family, near Carroll. She married Fred Benham in 1936, and over the years they lived at the properties of Exton in Willow Tree, Kelverton at Big Jacks Creek and Pleasant Side.
In 1995, Julia moved to Quirindi after losing her husband two years earlier. Mrs Benham was a committed Christian and a member of the St Oswald's Ladies Guild for all of her life in Willow Tree. She supported the church flower shows at Quirindi, Wallabadah, Warrah Creek, Big Jacks Creek and Willow Tree. The rostered cleaning duties and flower arrangements for Sunday services were part of her weekly life. She was a member of the CWA since 1936, holding various positions over 59 years at Willow Tree, including Treasurer for 33 years.
The Red Cross played a big part in her life. She was a Willow Tree branch member for over 50 years, and she was recognised with long-service awards and a laurel wreath for 50 years service and a guild rosette for 60 years service. In 2007 Mrs Benham received the highest award given to Red Cross members, which is the brooch and parchment for 70 years of service. Amazing—70 years of service to the Red Cross! Just weeks prior to her passing, she was the oldest Red Cross member in Australia, with a remarkable membership of 81 years. In 2009, Mrs Benham was recognised for her community service as she was nominated as a local legend at the Quirindi Australia Day Awards.
At the age of 79, Mrs Benham enrolled at the local TAFE to do a three-year commercial needlecraft advanced certificate course and graduated with a credit pass. At 92 years, Mrs Benham won the New South Wales CWA state award for the over-80s craft item. She was dearly loved by family and friends. In his eulogy, her son Stephen said:
Throughout her life, mum has seen many changes … however, there are some things that did not change. Her interest in people and her community and in voluntary service organisations have always been an important part of her life.
From her granddaughter, Julie Owen:
They always ask me: 'How did she get to be this age?' I've always attributed her longevity to being surrounded by a large and loving family, to an 'organic life' living off the land, to an 'active mind', her memory for everything is unparalleled, and her 'busy hands', she was always doing something, and above all else, her beautiful, kind, generous soul.
From her nephew, Geoffrey Ingall:
With her passing, so much history has been lost, but she was ready to go, and whilst we grieve with her family, we cannot be sad, but only rejoice in a long and fruitful life, well lived.
Julia Arabella Benham was dearly loved mother and mother-in-law of Jennifer and Grahame, Graham and Caroline, Stephen and Kay, Alex and Jill, and Helen and Ted. She was a beloved grandmother and great-grandmother to their families. The community of Quirindi and surrounding districts gathered at St Albans Anglican Church on 23 October 2018 to mourn and to celebrate the life of Julia Benham, a lady who gave so much of herself for the betterment of others. What a great lady. Rest in peace.
I rise this evening with a sombre tone to express my sympathies to residents affected by the 120 bushfires that have been burning, some for over a week, across Central Queensland. I express my condolences to the family of the young man who tragically lost his life over the weekend. My sympathies also go out to those who had to be airlifted to safety. These fires have spread far and wide over Queensland—fires that have threatened almost 20,000 people and around 8,000 homes. They've destroyed more than 527,000 hectares of land. I rise to thank the heroes who are fighting these blazes and to lend my support to the communities, the friends, the families and, in some cases, the total strangers who are helping affected residents in their time of need.
These bushfire warnings were first issued on the 25 November—on a Sunday—for the Baffle Creek and Deepwater National Park area. Sadly, they were the first of many. By that afternoon, Deepwater residents were being urged to evacuate as hot, dry conditions fuelled the burning bushfires. A community meeting was called for Monday night in Agnes Water, where attendees received briefings from council and emergency services personnel on the state of the fires. Local disaster plans were put into effect as evacuation zones widened to include the Baffle Creek, Rules Beach and Oyster Creek areas. As our firefighters fatigued, reinforcements began arriving from other states, most notably, New South Wales.
I particularly want to mention the Gracemere evacuation, where 8,000 people were evacuated using a fire stimulation system designed in Victoria after Black Saturday. The Premier of Queensland declared that it was a miracle that no lives were lost. Sadly, as one fire continued and the Gracemere residents were able to return home, 29 November saw fires threaten residents in Captain Creek and Winfield. Schools across parts of Central Queensland remained closed due to extreme heat and danger from the bushfires. We saw that more reinforcements arrived on the 30th from New South Wales and the ACT.
The Premier visited the Miriam Vale evacuation centre. Before thanking firefighters and volunteers and rallying the troops to dig deep and keep on fighting, the Premier announced a bushfire appeal with $125,000 from the state government to kickstart recovery efforts.
On Saturday 1 December, while many Australians were fortunate to enjoy the first warm day of summer, the bushfire update was 21 active fires in the Gladstone area, including fires at Deepwater and Eurimbula and other areas. There was a disaster declaration in place for the Gladstone disaster district, and fire bans in place for 37 local government areas in Central Queensland regions. Despite all of this, the Queensland spirit remains strong, and, together, we'll keep fighting.
I want to make some time for some very big thank yous. Firstly to our emergency services personnel—our firies, SES and volunteers—thank you for your dedication. Thanks to other essential services workers for keeping our health services open and making sure our kids were safe in schools and to those working in grocery and other supply stores that communities need open to keep functioning. To our elected representatives—the Premier and Deputy Premier, Mayor Matt Burnett and his wonderful team at the Gladstone Regional Council, Mayor Strelow in Rockhampton, state members and councillors, and Zac Beers, the federal Labor candidate for Flynn, who's done a remarkable job keeping his community informed through regular Facebook posts—and to the other jurisdictions—New South Wales, Victoria, ACT, South Australia and Tasmania—thank you for your help in Queensland's time of need.
In my conversation with Mr John Oliver of the United Firefighters Union, he stressed the point that given that we've got more protracted and intense fires these days, with the seasons now being more unpredictable, we probably need to look at resources being dealt with on an Australia wide basis rather than on a state-by-state basis. Thanks also go to the businesses that opened the doors and hearts to affected residents—Airbnb and GIVIT are two examples—the Red Cross for helping to monitor the movements of people, the charities taking donations for the bushfire appeals, the parents and families of children who were not able to go to the school due to the bushfires.
I want to say in advance, thank you to the extensive clean-up crews that will be deployed across Central Queensland. While the immediate threat to safety may have passed, in most areas the damage is done and recovery is only just beginning. People have lost their homes. Farmers have lost their crops. The trauma of having to leave behind pets and possessions will haunt victims for some time to come, maybe forever. These fires have been described as unprecedented and catastrophic, more intense and longer lasting. But Queenslanders are made of strong stuff. We are resilient. In tough times we come together. We did after the 2010-11 Queensland floods that devastated our state. We do so in times of severe drought. I want to conclude by encouraging those who want to donate to visit www— (Time expired)
Order! Sorry, Senator.
I have previously given a speech saying thank you to smokers. Today I want to thank another group of Australians who may be ignored or worse, but who make a great contribution to Australia. Let me say thank you to Australia's young brown men.
The young brown men I come across in my day-to-day life are often in low-paid jobs. They drive me in their Ubers and taxis. They deliver my online purchases, my groceries and my pizza. They serve me at my local 7-Eleven, at my local service station and at my local restaurants. Many of these young brown men have only been in Australia for a decade or so, and they are giving it a go, just like previous generations of young migrants. The countries of origin have changed, with previous generations coming from Vietnam and, before that, Europe, while our latest wave of young migrants are more often from the subcontinent and the Middle East, but the willingness to give it a go is the same.
Australia's young brown men are typically the ones who turn up their sleeves in the face of jobs that many other Aussies would turn up their noses at or would not turn up at all for. They do all this without whinging about a brown pay gap, even though, if there were any data, it would show a gap that is absolutely huge. Immigrants from greater Asia and the Middle East, both male and female, are disproportionately overrepresented in low-paying jobs in this country. Some are doing English courses, although some have better English than many graduates from the school system. Some are studying in new fields or are trying to get their existing qualifications recognised.
Up to 40 per cent of recent immigrants are overqualified for the work they are doing. Overeducation is greatest for immigrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds. According to the latest census, just 24 per cent of young educated migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds were able to find professional-level jobs within five years of arriving here, compared to 50 per cent of those from mainly-English-speaking countries. Australia may be squandering the talent pool of its young brown men and women.
A contributing factor is likely to be racial discrimination in employment. A Curtin University study last year found that skilled migrants experience an unwillingness by Australian employers to hire them, and many often end up working in lower-skilled jobs than the jobs they had before migrating to Australia. Some of the examples in the report were: an engineer working as a technician; a vocational school teacher working as a cleaner and packer; a geologist working in aged care; and a mechanical engineer employed as a security officer. Anyone who is a regular user of Uber and has a habit of chatting to their driver will hear similar tales. Of the 508 skilled migrants interviewed in the study, more than 53 per cent were working in a job that was of lower skill than the job they had prior to migrating, but they are working nonetheless.
Racial discrimination in employment is against the law but, in practice, such discrimination will only recede in time. In the meantime, our young brown men and women are patiently plugging away to make a living, and I thank them for this. Roughly half of our immigrant community is brown, so I have no qualms in repeating my thanks to the young brown men and women of Australia. Thank you. Through your hard work, you are doing what Australians have always done and, in the process, changing the complexion of Australia for the better.
I rise today in support of a motion that was debated in the House of Representatives on 25 June. On that day, a number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle spoke of recognising our country's first major international humanitarian relief effort. In 1917, Australians from all across the country began raising money for the survivors of one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the 20th century. Two years prior, a program of extermination had been inflicted on the Armenian people across the Ottoman Empire. The population were forced from their homes and subjected to involuntary labour, starvation and rape as they were marched across the ancestral homelands they had occupied for nearly three millennia.
All told, it's estimated that 1½ million people perished during this period. Their stories echoed so strongly here at home because many of our brave Anzacs bore witness to it. Our soldiers were brought into direct contact with the extraordinary suffering of the Armenian people while serving our country in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Their accounts inspired the thousands of stories that were published in Australian newspapers at the time detailing the systemic attempt to eliminate the Armenian people and their culture. These newspapers reported 'atrocities', 'massacres' and 'decimation' but never used the term 'genocide', simply because we hadn't yet invented a word that could fully encapsulate the myriad cruelties that were inflicted on the Armenian people.
In response to this tragedy, Australians from all walks of life banded together to raise funds to assist the orphans and survivors of the Armenian genocide, as well as other Christian minorities such as the Greeks and the Assyrians. The Armenian Relief Fund raised the modern-day equivalent of $1.5 million, and sent supplies on the government steamer Hobson's Bay to aid survivors. This is a proud moment in our history, and more than a century later the Armenian-Australian community is one of the many groups that contribute to the rich cultural tapestry of this nation. But we have not forgotten—indeed, we cannot forget—the special history we share.
As a Catholic, I was stirred by the words of Pope Francis in 2015 when he called on the entire human family to heed the warnings of this tragedy to 'protect us from falling into a similar horror'. Pope Francis called the genocide:
… the first of the deplorable series of catastrophes of the past century, made possible by twisted racial, ideological or religious aims …
And warned that:
Concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it.
As a former member of the New South Wales parliament, and indeed Premier of the great state of New South Wales, I am proud that a motion was passed in 1997 that acknowledged the Armenian genocide and honoured its victims. Today, that historic action is still commemorated with a memorial on the ninth floor of the New South Wales parliament building. Taking the step to recognise this event is so profoundly important to our society. It shows proper respect to survivors and it reinforces our steadfast opposition to any violent crime that seeks to dehumanise and destroy.
While I acknowledge that the word 'genocide' invokes sensitivities, I believe our failure to recognise these events undermines our relationships with our friends and allies. Australia plays a crucial role in promoting peace and human rights in the Asia-Pacific and across the globe. The harsh reality of the 21st century is that not all in the international community have learnt from the horrors of the era that preceded it. Ethnic and religious violence continues to plague countries around the world, and it serves only to undermine the fundamental laws of human rights that we hold to be true. We play a crucial role on the international stage in promoting these values but we fall short if we are not willing to acknowledge these acts when they occur, and particularly one that is so intertwined with the legacy of the Anzacs and our emerging nation.
If we are to stop the bleeding, we must denounce crimes against humanity whenever and wherever they occur. I am proud that our great nation helped the Armenian people in their time of need and that our actions served a community who today contribute so much to our modern multicultural society. It is important that we recognise our history, both our own and the one we share with the people of Armenia. I join my colleagues who have spoken in this house and in the other, both past and present, in calling on the federal parliament to acknowledge our first humanitarian effort as a country and to recognise the Armenian genocide.
On Saturday, 1 December, I had the incredible honour, with my friend Elida Faith, our candidate for Leichhardt in North Queensland, to represent Mr Bill Shorten at the moving tombstone ceremony which commemorated eight young lives which were tragically lost four years ago in the city of Cairns. Many people would remember the shock, the horror and the immense grief that was caused by the tragedy of the loss of these young lives and the way the communities came together to grieve and to hope that such a tragedy would never happen again.
In the beautiful Torres Strait Islander culture, there is a traditional tombstone opening ceremony, which cultural protocol dictates be called 'Keriba Omasker', which means 'our children' in the Erub Island dialect of the Torres Strait Islander language of Meriam Mir, a language of the children's heritage. At a time many years after the actual funeral ceremony, there's an opportunity for the community to gather together again to end the formal period of mourning and to start the period of genuine celebration and acknowledgement of the spirits that have been lost and are still with us. One of the most beautiful elements of the Torres Strait Islander culture is that they believe that the spirits of those who have passed do not go beyond us; they actually go beyond the sunset and continue to be with us so that we can share with them, remember them and keep their memories alive into the future.
The ceremony actually involves the time that the tombstones are made public to the community. The night before the ceremony, family members gather and they decorate each of the graves with mementos of the family and also with magnificent, beautiful quilts and colourful decorations. This is actually marking that transition period between grief and the time of remembrance. In many ways, whilst incredibly sad—the grief was there amongst the hundreds of people who were gathered at the Cairns cemetery—overwhelmingly, this was a time of joy because we were remembering eight innocent children who died together; it actually gave our community the chance to come together and move beyond that intense grief.
It was an intensely beautiful and moving ceremony. We had a number of hymns in the language of the Eastern Islands. Anyone who has had the beautiful pleasure of hearing Torres Strait Islands music can think about how the harmonies sang out across the beautiful Cairns cemetery. There's been a special area put aside where the eight graves and their tombstones are gathered together so that people can come and remember and think about these young lives, the joy they gave us and also the chance that we know they are still with us in many ways.
One of the more important elements of the ceremony was a message from the Torres Strait Regional Authority, which was given by Mr Joseph Elu, the member for Seisia, one of the areas in the Torres Strait. He called upon the people who were gathered there together to remember their culture. In the time of grief and the time of living, their beautiful culture will bring people together. All of the families and all of the friends who were there should constantly remember the beauty of the Torres Strait and always try to go home as much as possible so they can continue to share and to understand.
The Torres Strait Islands have a great religious spirit, and a number of the local pastors were there to ensure that we joined in prayer. Amongst the hymns and the prayers, family members were able to come forward and to gather around each of the tombstones to remember the people and join in the anointing of the gravestones and the cutting of the ribbons. As this was done, the singing continued, and then, as each of the family groups were gathered around each of the tombstones, the opportunity came for them to read out the names of the children and mention their sunrise, which is the day of their birth, and their sunset, which was 19 December 2014.
I want to read into the record the eight names of the children who were lost. At this stage I apologise for any of my pronunciation, because the names themselves are beautiful names that reflect Torres Strait Islander culture. They are: Malili Lydianna Margarita Emmakai Glorianna Warria, Vita Angelina Glorrianna Wazanna Thaiday, Shantae Jolee Majota Warria, La'Torrence Rayden Simeon James Warria, Azariah Ellison Reuben Willie, Daniel Stanley Willie, Rodney Jackson Deandre Willie, and Patrenella Frances Katalia Willie.
The family were gathered around the beautiful tombstones of each of those children, which encouraged their names, biblical text for each of the children and photographs of them. The photographs were also given to us on the order of service that each of the people who attended were able to see: the beautiful children and the memories of their lives in family groups and also laughing together. So many of the photographs that we had of the children to remember them by were their school photos.
On the day of the ceremony last Saturday so many young children were there together, taking part in the ceremony which, at the graveside, was concluded with a magnificent performance of wonderful Torres Strait Islander dance. As many people here would know, that thrusting thump of Torres Strait Islander drums causes people to move. Among the hundreds of people who had gathered to share in the ceremony you could feel the pleasure and the pain of the drums beating out as the memory of these children was shared by all.
At that stage, the message to all of us was that our grief was real: the grief of the Cairns community, the community shared across the Torres Strait and also so many other people who learned of this tragedy at the time and felt they needed to be part of it because the shock was so great. They are now in the position of moving from mourning into remembrance—moving into the joy of remembering the innocence and excitement of so many young lives. That was translated to all of us by the music and then, as we left the cemetery, by the knowledge that we were going back to the large feast and celebration which was the second part of the activities. It was a cultural feast for family members and the extended community held at the Cairns Showgrounds in the evening.
My understanding is that the dancing, singing and joy continued into the evening so that the spirits of each of those young people whose lives were lost so tragically four years ago are still with us. They are with us beyond the sunset and they will continue to live with us as we remember them and, particularly, hope that such a tragedy will never happen again in our community.
Tonight I want to talk about the fact that we have a national security crisis in Australia and the terrorists are in our homes.
Seven weeks ago I started moving motions acknowledging the number of women killed by violence between sittings of the Senate. Since 17 October, 16 women have died by violence in Australia. It's very welcome, but, sadly, very unusual that there have been no reports of a woman killed by violence since the Senate last sat one week ago. Earlier today, I moved a fourth motion where the Senate, again, agreed—and I thank the chamber for its support—that this was a national security crisis. But where is the action?
So far in 2018, 63 women have been killed as a result of domestic or family violence, and already this year more women have been murdered by a partner or former partner than in the whole of last year. We're all used to that figure of one woman a week, but it's been a lot more than that in the last few weeks and months. The deadliest month in this year was July, when eight women were killed. That's twice as many as the usual toll that we're used to. If these deaths were from sharks or strawberries then something would have been done by now. These figures are imperfect: they don't take into account the children killed in these acts of violence and they don't take into account the damage done over the long term.
This is a national security crisis. We need to have a conversation about what's driving domestic violence. The experts have told us time and time again that gender inequality is what's driving violence against women and their children. There are a whole range of factors that can increase the likelihood of violence, but it all starts with rigid gender norms that devalue women; that devalue their time, their points of view and their unique contribution to the world—including their reproductive and caring work. Is it any wonder that we see this epidemic of violence when our institutions of power are still dominated by men?
We are doing very poorly in our federal parliament; women take up barely 30 per cent of positions and yet we are 51 per cent of the population. Most women are still fighting for pay parity. There are so many everyday examples of the inequality that women are subjected to, and the biggest of those inequalities is not being listened to or believed. We know how to solve this domestic security crisis that has killed dozens of women this year alone. Researchers, social workers, nurses, doctors and teachers have all told us time and time again how to address this murderous wave in society. In the immediate term, fund frontline services, invest in prevention and education and give proper resources to crisis response. In the medium term, invest in affordable housing, provide for paid domestic violence leave—not unpaid, as the current government is now doing reluctantly and belatedly—and pay for lawyers and advocates to help women escape from harm and build their lives anew. Yet the men who call the shots still don't listen.
The Prime Minister tweets about sport more often than he tweets about the dozens of women who've been murdered in their homes by men overwhelmingly known to them. There is this creeping silence from people in positions of power about the issue of violence in society. Over the last generation, campaigners and frontline workers have succeeded in making women's lives count and changing the view of domestic violence from family trouble to criminal acts which have serious consequences for the health and wellbeing for women of all walks of life—rich, poor, migrant, Aboriginal, young, old, queer, straight, you name it. They are more likely to suffer violence coming from a person they already know in their own homes than from a stranger in a public place, which is the form that violence against men more often than not takes.
We know that men are more likely than women to perpetrate intimate-partner violence and more likely to use frequent, prolonged and extreme violence. Men are more likely than women to sexually assault their partner. Men are more likely than women to subject their partner to controlling and coercive behaviours. Women are more likely than men to suffer physical harm, including injuries requiring medical treatment, time off work and days in bed. Women are more likely than men to be the victims of domestic homicide, and yet the latest National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey found that there's been an ongoing decline in awareness that men are more likely to commit domestic violence and that women are more likely to suffer harm from it.
The survey also made some incredibly disturbing findings: that one in seven Australians do not agree that women are as capable as men in politics—I mean, LOL—that one in five Australians believe domestic violence is a normal reaction to stress and sometimes a woman can make a man so angry he hurts her without meaning to; and that one in eight Australians believe that if a woman is raped while she is drunk or affected by drugs she is at least partly responsible. This is what we have to work towards changing. We need a whole-of-society approach, but we need it to be led from the top. So far, all that Australians are seeing here is sexist slurs across the chamber from a sea of male faces swimming in blue ties.
The thing with sexism is that it devalues women's lives, it trivialises the lives of half the world and, ultimately, it kills. The connection between sexism and domestic violence is clear. Intimate-partner violence causes more illness, disability and deaths than any other risk factor for women aged 25 to 44—more than traffic accidents or cancer or heart disease—yet the men who call the shots still don't listen.
We fundamentally believe that women's lives count, that people's lives should be protected from harm, but perhaps we should speak in terms that satisfy the reasoning of those who only understand or care for dollar signs. In 2015-16, the financial cost of violence against women and their children in Australia was estimated at $22 billion by KPMG. Let's put that in perspective. Australia spends about $35 billion per year on defence. The mining industry receives $4 billion worth of federal government subsidies and concessions each year. Family and domestic violence is a social and economic problem of huge scale. Family, domestic and sexual violence happens repeatedly. More than half of the women who currently experience partner violence have experienced a violent incident before. One of the leading reasons why women stay in unsafe relationships is economic hardship or lack of an effective advocate who can help them navigate an expensive, complex legal system that often doesn't take seriously women's fears for their safety.
Violence in Australian homes is a domestic security crisis—there's no two ways about it. From 2012-13 to 2013-14, about one woman a week and one man a month were killed as a result of violence from a current or previous partner. This figure is rising in the face of inadequate responses. Women have the right to be free from violence and harassment, to get equal pay for work of equal value, to have the freedom to choose when it comes to their own bodies and to have equal opportunities for housing, financial and workplace security. Despite the many advances that women's rights and reforms have achieved, there is overwhelming evidence that women still do not have the same rights and privileges as men. Women's right to safety is not guaranteed in one of the 20th wealthiest countries in the world.
The Greens want to see action that rewrites the rules for women's financial and economic security, for their safety and wellbeing, and to build an Australia where women are safe, respected, valued and treated as equals in public and private life. We should start with a moratorium on violence so that next year, when we meet again in this place, we can finally say, 'No woman has died at the hands of an intimate partner since we last sat.'
Last week was a significant week for the future of our country and the future of energy generation across Australia. Labor proudly did what this government has been unable to do over the last five years—that is, announce a credible energy policy. You would think any Western democracy—or any democracy, for that matter—would have an energy policy. But, no, not the Australian Liberal government, because none of those opposite can agree on a policy position. It is absolute incompetence and recklessness that they cannot move past the internal division within their party for the good of Australia's economic future. We know Mr Morrison supports privatising electricity assets and that he opposes a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target. Any economist worth their salt knows that not securing an energy future is poor economics. It places our national economy in no-man's-land when the world is moving every day to a renewable energy future. As a people, as a country, we need to meet the challenges of the future, and there is no more significant challenge than transitioning to renewable energy over the coming decades.
Bill Shorten and Labor have not been a small-target opposition. We have a plan for Australia's future, which is why our $15 billion program for driving the transformation in Australia's energy system to low emissions is a fundamental policy for Australia's future. Labor's energy policy is not only about securing Australia's long-term economic future; it will be good for households and good for the environment. A sustainable future is smart economics, and it's security for current and future generations. Australia has been in energy crisis under the Liberals and this has to change for the good of our nation. Power bills are out of control, pollution is rising and, if we leave energy policy to the rabble opposite, Australia will continue to be without a policy.
Labor's preference is for bipartisanship on energy and climate policy. That's why the National Energy Guarantee should stay on the table. But, while we will work with the Liberals, we won't wait for them. So we've put out the hand to say, 'Come and join us and work with us, but we're not going to stand still and wait for you to catch up.' Labor have a clear plan, a plan that will move us forward with more renewable energy and cheaper power prices. This includes investing in renewable energy, with a plan to: deliver 50 per cent of power through renewables by 2030; end the power privatisation mess by stopping incentives to privatise electricity assets; stop overcharging by power companies through regulating prices and implementing gas export controls; futureproof the energy network with new interconnectors, pipelines and transmission links; and plan the transition to renewables, helping workers and communities as ageing coal plants reach the end of their technical life and are replaced with renewables. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will have a funding injection of $10 billion to lead the clean energy transition.
In the next 10 years, the share of renewable energy in the market will increase and coal generation will transition out of the market. An integrated system plan through the Australian Energy Market Operator will be vital for transforming the energy system. Renewable energy zones will be created, with investment in new generation and transmission infrastructure and in firming technologies, such as batteries and gas-fired peaking plants. There are many more potential projects across the nation, including upgrades to interconnectors, such as a second connection across Bass Strait to develop Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project. Transition within the energy sector is crucial, which is why Labor will set up a $10 million training fund to skill workers in the coal-fired power sector to work in renewable energy. A clean energy future is here now, and the future can be bright if we transition now.
My home state of Tasmania can be a renewable energy leader—we have been in the past and we can be in the future. We have already displayed these credentials with our hydroelectric generation, our new pumped-hydro schemes and our wind farm initiatives at Musselroe Bay. I have faith in Tasmanians and I believe Tasmanians can manufacture quality solar panels for global consumption alongside important energy infrastructure. We must do everything in our power to secure a renewable energy future now. It's good for people, it's good for our environment, it's good for families, and it's good for our economy.
At a state level, not enough is being done to encourage people to get off the grid and be self-sufficient. Understandably, governments are obsessed with revenue. I know the Tasmanian Liberal government certainly is. The current solar feed-in tariff in Tasmania is at just over 8.9c per kilowatt-hour for electricity exported to the mains grid. Government should be incentivising further installations and rewarding systems that are already installed. Those Tasmanians who installed solar panels prior to September 2013 were grandfathered at a feed-in tariff commitment of 28c and were not allowed to upgrade their systems if they wanted to keep that rate. This shows how out of touch the Liberal state government in Tasmania is. They should have been giving bigger incentives for people to invest in solar power. This plan is set to end on 31 December this year, which is not good policy for encouraging people to stick with solar. This rate should be adopted across the board, and individuals should be permitted to upgrade their systems.
If we want to transition, which we on this side of the chamber do, then we should be encouraging. We should be giving incentives for families to invest in solar. We should be giving incentives for businesses to make that transition. That's the responsibility of the federal government. That's the responsibility of our state governments. And it's very regrettable that in Tasmania the Liberal government is so short-sighted that it is going to reduce that tariff and take away the incentive for those who have already invested in solar. I urge this government to come on board, to get into the 21st century and to realise that clean energy is the way of the future. Renewable energy is the way of the future.
Tasmania has always had a proud history of being innovative. We've been innovative with the hydroelectric scheme. We're being innovative with wind energy. There's research into wave energy. We need to ensure that Tasmanian companies are encouraged to invest in renewable energy moving forward. This federal government, which is so divided around the issue of climate change and renewable energies, needs to get into the 21st century. It needs to give incentives. It needs to work with us to ensure that we have the future Australians deserve. Government should be doing everything in its power to encourage people to invest in household renewable energy. That's the way of the future, and I appeal to those on the opposite side to put their differences aside, to do what's best for this country, to do what's best for Australian families, to do what's best for the environment and certainly to do what's best for the economy.
I'd like to inform the Senate tonight of a situation in my home state of South Australia, which was raised with me by my very diligent and hardworking Labor colleague Clare Scriven MLC. Clare is, in fact, my counterpart in the South Australian parliament. She is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, the state's upper house. She's raised with me a very serious issue in her community, the community of Mount Gambier—in that beautiful part of South Australia, the south-east of South Australia.
About four years ago, Mount Gambier and the Limestone Coast region, like many regional areas across Australia, had been dealing with problems associated with drug abuse, including the use of the drug commonly known as ice. Indeed, Mount Gambier was chosen to host the federal government's first National Ice Taskforce community meeting in 2015. Media reports at that time and since have talked about the confronting challenges drug abuse can cause for communities, including drug-induced psychosis and violence—including violence against emergency services and hospital staff—as well as the health and social impacts of drug use by teenagers and, in some reported cases, children.
Despite these concerning reports and despite the hard work of the south-east community leaders and service providers, it seems that there is now a lack of support from the Morrison government. Last week, on 28 November 2018, The Border Watch newspaper reported: 'Mount Gambier and the Limestone Coast will miss out on $20 million of an Australian government boost to drug and alcohol treatment services, with the region not considered as "an area of need" compared to other South Australian locations.' Just to be clear, the federal funding announced for drug and alcohol treatment services is not open to services in South Australia's south-east. That is completely unacceptable, given the issues that have been identified in the region, including through the government's own Ice Taskforce community meeting.
For those senators not familiar with Mount Gambier, it's South Australia's biggest population centre outside of Adelaide, with a population of about 26,000 people. The broader Mount Gambier and Limestone Coast area has a population of about 65,000 people. Sadly, there have already been far too many cases in this community of damage done by ice and other drugs.
On 9 January this year, the then-Liberal candidate for the state seat of MacKillop, Mr Nick McBride, was quoted in the Border Chronicle newspaper about the scourge of ice in the region, the toll it was taking on the community and how more must be done to combat it. Mr McBride said:
The South East is facing an uphill battle against crystal methamphetamine, also known as Ice, and we need a greater strategy to stop the spread of this drug.
Not only do we need more preventative measures put in place but we need the support services to assist those involved in using 'Ice' to be rehabilitated.
It's clear that the local state member gets it. It's clear that Labor's local candidate down there, Clare Scriven, gets it. Perhaps the member for Barker, Tony Pasin, could learn a thing or two from Clare and stand up for his local community. Rather than standing up for the needs of the south-east communities, Tony Pasin has instead bucketed his buddies inside the Canberra bubble. As the federal Liberal South Australian MPs and senators have so often done on issues like the River Murray, energy and infrastructure investment, Tony Pasin has chosen to protect the political interests of his party colleagues rather than advocate for the interests of people he is supposed to represent. It seems the only thing Mr Pasin has done in recent times is to organise the fumbling numbers for Peter Dutton.
Senator, sorry to interrupt you. You did say you would speak for five minutes, and this is a 10-minute slot, so just to assist the chamber—
Yes, I'll just finish, thank you. I notice you interrupted when I was talking about 'fumbling of the numbers' for Peter Dutton.
I let you finish your sentence, so—
I don't know whether that was intentional. Unlike Tony Pasin, Clare Scriven has gone on to bat for the people of the south-east.
Senator Anning, the clock will be set for 10 minutes, but could you speak for five minutes please.
My speech today is about two cases that the banking royal commission should have investigated. The first case is that of the law company of Mr Stewart Levitt. His company acted for the Storm Financial victims and some Bankwest victims. Journalists including Hedley Thomas and Michael West have published stories on this, with one heading being, 'Revealed: CBA's secret deal with Storm victims' lawyer.' In one of these stories, Stewart Levitt has been accused of sleeping with the enemy—the enemy was the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. It can be confirmed Stewart Levitt also has more than a dozen complaints against him with the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner, who have engaged the New South Wales Law Society to investigate. Stewart Levitt was behind an extortion attempt on the CBA by engaging Michael Fraser to harass and stalk the CBA head of settlements bank executive, Mr Brendan French. Hedley Thomas wrote in a story that CBA confirmed that Stewart Levitt was involved—from findings by a metadata expert. From the stories published, it appears that the CBA had a secret deal with Stewart Levitt.
In my view, we will need to have judges from the United Kingdom hear such matters involving lawyers, court officials and others in the legal system, since the UK judges are somewhat removed from our system and know how to send bank fraudsters to jail. We need commissioners to ask questions such as: what precise arrangement did CBA have with Stewart Levitt, and why did CBA agree to pay Stewart Levitt almost $10 million in relation to the Storm Financial matter? There is also a need to question if there was any corruption with other professions. For example, did Stewart Levitt put on a fundraiser for a federal senator on 28 August 2013? What was the reason that CBA hired a security firm, G4S, to spy on Stewart Levitt's fundraiser event?
My second story comes from NAB victim Mr Lynton Freeman. His information has been heard at a Senate inquiry. Mr Freeman alleges Judges Noud and Robin allowed the true facts of NAB receivership on his property to be covered up. For example, Mr Freeman alleges the bank and receivers were assisted by the stock squad not identifying who owned which cattle by the evidence of their brands. Mr Freeman alleges not all of these cattle were returned to their correct owners. Mr Freeman alleges the bank retained the records of the stock accounts, but the receivers failed to produce the dockets in court. Mr Freeman alleges the court charged him with stealing his own cattle.
This matter went to the Court of Appeal in Queensland, presided over by Judge de Jersey. Mr Freeman alleges that the court found initially that the cattle sale documents did not exist, but after the court process the agents just happened to produce them. Mr Freeman alleges that, when the matter went back to court, Judge de Jersey was sidelined on the bench to stop the judge viewing the subpoenaed documents that NAB told him did not exist. Apparently, Judge de Jersey had admitted he had spoken with one of the receivers involved in the case prior to the day of the appeal. Therefore, questions need to be asked, such as: did the receivers and the judge collude? Were there officials complicit in Lynton Freeman's case? How many cattle were sold by the receivers with the wrong ownership documents?
The royal commission has not revealed the Queensland Property Law Act 1974, which has been amended at section 85 to include the mortgagor protection act of 2008, which, in a sense, says the bank is fully responsible for liquidation of properties. This means all the immoral and illegal actions of Queensland receivers and liquidators are a liability of the banks. The royal commission has not investigated how redress for victims should be conducted either.
I conclude with the amusing but ridiculous fact that the Prime Minister says the royal commission would be extended if the commissioner asked for it. However, Rowena Orr, counsel assisting the commissioner, has said to bank victims that the government has to ask them to extend the royal commission first. Don't you love how government decisions are made and authorised?
I thank Senator Patrick for his courtesy in allowing me to go before him. Tonight, I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful woman—my dear late friend Teresa Todaro-Restifa. In 2016, Teresa was diagnosed with a tumour. Her determination to outlast the prognoses of her various doctors meant she fought not just the cancer, but the treatment it required. Despite this determination, her struggle was a difficult one which she recently lost. I am so pleased that her husband, Sam, and her daughter, Isabella, and grandson, Alessandro, are in the gallery this evening.
Teresa was born on 24 March 1952 in Poggioreale, a small town in Sicily. She grew up there surrounded by a large and loving family. At age 16, whilst studying architecture and art at the Institut Palermo, her life was turned upside down when the valley of the Belice River suffered a devastating earthquake which destroyed her home town as well as all that she cherished and loved. Soon after that, she moved to Sydney with her parents, sisters and brother. She was forced to give up her studies in order to earn money for the family and instead obtained a diploma in accounting from Metropolitan Accountancy College in Sydney. In giving the eulogy at her funeral, her son, Simon, said that one of Teresa's greatest regrets was not completing her studies, which in turn meant that she worked so hard to ensure her own children received the best education possible.
In 1970, she commenced work at La Fiamma, the Italian newspaper. However, it was her desire to help people that led her to volunteer with Co.As.It—the Italian assistance organisation in 1971, helping newly arrived Italian migrants to integrate into the Australian community. This was the beginning of a life-long contribution to the Italo-Australian community which made her one of the most well-known and respected community figures.
It was during her time working in the arrival centre that she met a fellow volunteer, Sam Restifa, who was to be her lifelong companion. A strong bond and friendship developed between Teresa and Sam and together they set about to helping young Italian migrants by organising social events for them. Teresa and Sam married in 1974 and quickly set about building their future family. Sam, you gave Teresa everything, but above all, she had your love and you had her love. It was the strength of this bond that ensured yours was a successful marriage for life. And so, after working at CBC Banking Corporation for a short time, she and Sam welcomed their son, Simon, in 1979, and three years later Isabella was born.
In 1980, Teresa became a director of Restifa and Partners, the business which she and Sam built up to be a successful private consultancy firm specialising in the administration and construction of commercial centres all over Australia. A devoted wife and mother, Teresa sacrificed a lot of her own dreams in order to fulfil the role of family matriarch.
Teresa and I first started activities together in the 1990s, when we were founding members of the Accademia Italiana della Cucina, a Sydney delegation of which she became treasurer in 2000. Our role was to judge Italian restaurants. Our members were all fine cooks and arbiters of good Italian cuisine. Of course we took our jobs seriously and enjoyed many fine evenings at some good Italian restaurants and some not-so-good ones. It was great fun, and Teresa's organisational skills meant our gatherings always ran with precision.
Teresa was a marvellous cook and it was always a pleasure to dine at the Restifas'. Of course, her speciality was Sicilian cooking, and I recall a particularly stunning cassata which she made according to an old traditional family recipe. Over the years, we met at the Restifas' home for meetings. Teresa and Sam were always generous hosts, and we were very grateful for them opening their wonderful home for what were always convivial gatherings.
In 2000 Teresa became a board member of the San Antonio Da Padova di Poggioreale Nursing Home in Ryde, a position she held for 17 years. Over her many years of community activities, she was involved with many different groups, including the Dante Alighieri Society, movement of Christian workers in Australia, various associations of Sicilian groups and the Patronato SIAS in Sydney.
In 2004 Teresa was elected to Com.It.Es, the Committee of Italians Abroad, in New South Wales, and this of course set the scene for her to have a tilt at the Italian parliament. Italian residents residing abroad are entitled to elect 12 members to the house of deputies and six senators. There are a number of constituencies around the world. We live in the constituency of Africa, Asia, Oceania and Antarctica, and in 2006 Teresa stood for that constituency. Whilst the bulk of the voters were situated in Australia, many resided in Africa and, to a lesser extent, in Asia and the Pacific. Of course, this really does constitute electioneering on a grand scale. It required Teresa not only to travel to different parts of the world but to commit considerable resources towards her election. Can I acknowledge the wonderful support that Sam, Isabella and Teresa's whole family gave to her to help her in this quest. Whilst unsuccessful, Teresa continued with her community activities. She stood again in 2008 and again in 2013 in the same constituency. Whilst Teresa herself was not elected to the chamber of deputies, her son-in-law, Mario Borghese, from the Movimento Associativo Italiani all'Estero, was elected to the South American constituency in 2013.
Can I especially acknowledge the challenges that you, Isabella, have faced. You and Mario live in Cordoba, in Argentina, and you have not only supported your husband Mario in his work in the Italian parliament in Rome and in South America but also come backwards and forwards to Australia to be with mum.
In 2013, notwithstanding not being successful at the Italian elections, Teresa was re-elected to community service with Com.It.Es New South Wales. She worked very hard. Her warm, friendly nature meant that she received a lot of support, but, regrettably, due to the formidable machinery of the Left and its associated entities in Australia, she was unsuccessful. As a conservative female myself, I understood well the challenges that Teresa faced. Having myself been involved in many Italo-Australian community activities and having also been elected to various of its representative positions, I knew firsthand the difficulties and the personalities involved. We gave each other friendship, understanding and support.
I am really, truly sorry that Teresa never achieved her ambition to be elected to the Italian parliament. I have no doubt that, had she done so, she would have been a very fine and very committed member of parliament. She would have served with distinction and made sure that she dutifully responded to the needs of all her constituents across this vast electorate. Teresa was also a member of the Liberal Party, having joined in 2007. She served in various capacities, including as Vice-President and then President of the NSW Italian Special Branch of the party.
I would like to publicly acknowledge the wonderful support that Teresa and her family have given me throughout my career. Teresa was one of only a very few number of women on the conservative side of politics in the Italo-Australian community, and we were proud to support each other.
Teresa also received various recognitions for her community work. In 2005 she became a dame and then, in 2007, a baroness within the Italian Order of the Iron Crown. In 2010 she became an ambassador of the Order. In 2007 she was made a Dame of Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. I must say she looked very distinguished in her official robes!
An example of Teresa's can-do attitude was when the Pope visited for World Youth Day. Teresa was told that 2,000 young Italians were arriving and needed somewhere to stay. Teresa mobilised, and within 48 hours she had the Marconi Club organised so that they could sleep, had somewhere to stay and were looked after during their stay. This was so typical of Teresa. She was always willing to lend a hand. She was warm, generous and had a wonderful sense of humour. I know she helped many people, and I am sure that many will remember her with fondness and gratitude. The last time I saw Teresa, she castigated me for working too hard. Given her own work ethic, I took the reprimand with a wry smile.
To you, Sam, Isabella, Mario, Simon and all your family: it has been hard to see her wonderful, strong spirit wilting under the gravity of the illness that took her. We will miss her smile and we will always remember the wonderful woman she was. Vale Teresa Todaro Restifa.
In June, the parliament passed two major pieces of legislation, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act. The espionage and foreign interference legislation came into immediate effect and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme will, somewhat belatedly, come into operation around 10 December.
The transparency scheme will introduce registration obligations for persons and entities who, on behalf the foreign principals, engage in parliamentary and general political lobbying, communications activities and disbursement activities for the purposes of political or governmental influence. Criminal penalties will apply for noncompliance.
The legislation was largely prompted by media revelations of largely secret relationships between Australian political figures and foreign and foreign-connected political donors. The most prominent of these cases involved former Labor senator Sam Dastyari dealing with prominent Chinese political donors and his advocacy for the Chinese government's position on the South China Sea. Prior to his exposure and political demise, Senator Dastyari undoubtedly anticipated that he would become a senior minister in a future Labor government. Senator Dastyari's actions were highly questionable, and his departure from the parliament was appropriate.
Another long-running controversy arose from the relationship between the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, and Chinese-Australian property developer Helen Liu. Reporting by Fairfax Media revealed Ms Liu to be a generous donor to Mr Fitzgibbon's election campaigns and the New South Wales Labor Party. In 2009 Fairfax reported that Defence security officials suspected Ms Liu was associated with Chinese military intelligence. The revelation of Ms Liu's close links with Mr Fitzgibbon and a failure to declare two trips to China paid for by Ms Liu precipitated the controversy that preceded his resignation as the Minister for Defence in 2009.
Following further Fairfax reports concerning alleged payments by Ms Liu to Mr Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter pursued a defamation claim that was eventually settled by Fairfax for commercial reasons. Ms Liu also pursued a defamation claim against Fairfax and spent years pursuing the sources that gave information to Fairfax journalists about her alleged payments to Mr Fitzgibbon, as well as to Chinese government and Bank of China officials.
In June last year, Fairfax confirmed that Ms Liu had close business and personal ties with senior Chinese military intelligence operatives. One of Ms Liu's Australian companies, Wincopy, transferred over $250,000 to a Hong Kong company that US officials identified as a front for Chinese espionage and interference in the 1996 US presidential election campaign, what was later called the 'Chinagate' scandals. The Hong Kong company was owned by Liu Chao-ying, a well-connected Lieutenant Colonel in the Chinese military intelligence and vice president of a Chinese government company responsible for acquiring foreign missiles and satellite technology.
Helen Liu's company, Wincopy, donated to Mr Fitzgibbon's 1998 election campaign. When Fairfax reported these revelations last year, Ms Liu denied any involvement with Chinese intelligence. However, she also very promptly dropped her defamation case against Fairfax. Mr Fitzgibbon denied any knowledge of Ms Liu's connections with the military intelligence officer Liu Chao-ying. In answer to questions from journalist Chris Uhlmann, Mr Fitzgibbon made the following comments: 'I did not participate in any meetings or discussions with Chinese military officials during my visit to China. I have never written to a Chinese official. Suggestions that I've been involved in any of Helen Liu's business interests or benefited in any way from them are farcical and lack any credibility whatsoever.'
Mr Fitzgibbon's statement that he had never written to a Chinese official is at odds with information contained in an affidavit sworn by him and lodged in the ACT Supreme Court in his defamation action against Fairfax. In that affidavit Mr Fitzgibbon listed a series of letters he wrote to Chinese officials between 1996 and 2005. It lists a letter he wrote in 1999 to Shandong's Communist Party chief, Wu Guanzheng. Shandong is Ms Liu's home province and location of many of her business activities in China. Mr Wu was made a full member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China in 1999, and in 2002 he was appointed as head of Chinese Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the Communist Party's anticorruption agency, a position he held until 2007. The affidavit also recorded that in 2005 Mr Fitzgibbon wrote to Zhou Wenching, a vice-governor in Shandong Province. Again in 2005, Mr Fitzgibbon wrote to Zhao Kezhi, another vice-governor of Shandong Province. Mr Fitzgibbon later dined with Mr Zhao at a restaurant in his electorate of Hunter. Mr Zhao is now the Chinese Communist Party's secretary of Hebei Province. In 2006 Mr Fitzgibbon also wrote to Liu Wei, apparently another senior official within the Communist Party in Shandong. Mr Fitzgibbon's affidavit also recorded that in 1997 he wrote to the immigration section of the Australian embassy in Beijing in relation to Ms Liu, her family or businesses. In 2000, he wrote a character reference for Jie Liu, who is believed to be Helen Liu's nephew. The 2011 affidavit has not actually been made available publicly.
It may be that all this correspondence was entirely innocuous; however, it suggests that Mr Fitzgibbon's involvement with Ms Liu's businesses and other activities may have been more extensive than his denials last June indicated. He certainly did write to Chinese officials. Mr Fitzgibbon's longstanding relationship with Helen Liu and her sister, Queena, included using a Canberra apartment leased by the sisters while defence minister. That, of course, may have been entirely innocent and unremarkable. However, serious issues about this case remain unresolved. These issues include the full extent of Ms Liu's dealings with Chinese intelligence officer Liu Chaoying, Mr Fitzgibbon's denial of correspondence with Chinese officials, and whether Mr Fitzgibbon undertook activities on behalf of Ms Liu in Australia or in relation to her business interests in China. There is also the question of whether Mr Fitzgibbon's family, including his late father, Eric, received any benefits from Ms Liu or other persons that were outside the member for Hunter's obligation to declare as a member of parliament
Mr Fitzgibbon presumably expects to serve as a senior minister in the Labor Party if it wins the next election. However, he should not serve in any ministerial office until there has been a full investigation of the security issues, including his vulnerability to compromise, arising from his past ties with Ms Liu. Ministers occupy positions of the highest trust within the Australian government. Cabinet ministers are privy to the most sensitive decisions and the highest levels of security classified information. Curiously, under the current Australian Protective Security Policy Framework, ministers are exempt from security checking and clearance processes that apply to all other Australian government personnel who have access to sensitive classified information. Ministers, it appears, are taken on trust. In contrast, the government of Canada conducts security background checks in relation to federal ministers. It's clearly highly anomalous that Australian ministers should be exempt from security background checks.
Regrettably, it cannot be assumed that persons appointed as ministers will always be free of characteristics, activities, associations, connections or obligations that may compromise or risk compromise of national security. With this in mind, I intend to introduce a private member's bill to establish a mandatory security background checking process for all ministers. This would address a significant gap in Australia's protective security framework. Security at the highest levels of the Australian government should never be compromised.
On Saturday, 1 December, the world acknowledged and celebrated World AIDS Day. It was particularly special because it is the 30th anniversary of World AIDS Day. It's been 30 years since the World Health Organization began their global campaign to fight the spread of HIV around the globe.
I remind senators and, indeed, the nation of where we were back in 1988 when the world, including Australia, had been for some time grappling with the HIV-AIDS epidemic. It has been 30 years since Australian scientists and healthcare professionals began their pioneering research, treatments and engagement with communities affected by HIV. We've made great strides since the HIV-AIDS epidemic was first recognised, when the Hawke Labor government was in power. Indeed, I'm proud of the way the Labor government led the world with its response to the epidemic in the 1980s.
We have made progress, and this is due in general terms to the cooperative and bipartisan approach to policy with which we have as a nation tackled HIV. We've made great progress and there is still a great deal of work for us to do both here in Australia and internationally. We have globally about 37 million people living with HIV. Without treatment, this would in many cases be a death sentence. But we have wonderful treatment programs that mean most people living with HIV, including all Australians who are HIV-positive, go on to live happy lives where HIV is a chronic illness, not a terminal illness.
Of the 36.9 million people living with HIV, 21 million have access to treatment. Perhaps one of the most alarming numbers in the World Health Organization is that last year 1.8 million people were newly diagnosed with HIV. This figure is most concerning because we have the tools and the expertise to halt new transmissions, to end HIV. In our own region, the Asia-Pacific, there are over five million people living with HIV-AIDS, with around 300,000 infections each year. Our near neighbour, Papua New Guinea, has the highest prevalence of AIDS in the Pacific, and AIDS-related deaths are, very sadly, increasing. Australia has the skills, expertise and resources to help our neighbours. I'm particularly pleased that a Shorten Labor government will contribute to international development assistance that will have a positive bearing on health outcomes in the region, including tackling HIV-AIDS.
In the last year alone, 1,000 Australians were diagnosed with HIV. What's wonderful about this is that this is in fact a seven per cent decline in new diagnoses when compared to the preceding four years. But this number is still much too high. For our First Australians, there is a slow but sustained increase in infection rates right across the nation and in particular clusters. We need strong commitments from government to address this. I am really proud to say that Labor's commitments include $10 million a year to renew Labor's response by restoring the funding and capacity that the current government has cut from national HIV organisations. Importantly, it also means $3 million a year to target hidden populations, including people who are not diagnosed or currently treated for HIV. It includes targeting ATSI communities and people from CALD backgrounds. I'm really pleased to say that Labor is committed to strengthening prevention, testing and treatment for these communities. (Time expired)
Last week, thousands of students around Australia walked out of their classrooms and went on strike to demand strong action on climate change. They took this extraordinary step because of the collective failure that we all share in this place because we have collectively refused to address, or even take seriously the existential threat that we face: climate breakdown and an extinction crisis—two sides of the same terrible coin. To all of those kids right around the country who walked out of their schools and engaged in this fantastic action, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for your passion. Thank you for your activism. Thank you for your leadership. History is made by people who show up, and you certainly showed up last week. Please keep showing up. Stay strong, get involved and keep organising. Your time will come.
We had some in this place who thought it would be funny to demean them. Members of the Liberal Party had the gall to pour scorn on these kids for rightly calling out the repeated failures of the LNP in this parliament. These are the same jokers who basically shut down the parliament a few months ago because they were too busy brawling over their own leadership, these self-obsessed fossil fools. We had Senator Canavan, who appears to think that he actually works for Adani, telling the students that they were destined for the dole queues. We had Senator McGrath posting a photo of an underage girl on Facebook to laugh at the sign she was holding and asking his followers to mock her, which some of them did in the most vulgar terms imaginable. We even had caretaker Prime Minister Scott Morrison telling them to basically sit down and shut up. For those people to sit around in their air-conditioned taxpayer offices having a go at kids for daring to raise a word in protest just shows that they are gutless as well as clueless.
These kids, who wanted to protest against the ruin that many in the LNP want to make of their future, actually showed up the LNP as a pathetic rabble in addressing climate breakdown. I tell you what, you're extremely lucky they were only carrying signs, because there are plenty of young people who actually want to burn this place to the ground—and who could blame them? There is a climate emergency going on right now. Half of Queensland was burning, and all we got from the government was self-congratulations and support for one of the world's biggest coalmines. Well, I tell you what, by these kids showing up and demanding action, they showed up those in this place who remain in denial. And in response they were pilloried by some in the LNP.
The Prime Minister should have said: 'Good on you, kids. We are listening to you as you stand up for your future. We are sorry that it has taken us so long to get on board with strong action to address the breakdown of the ecosystem, which ultimately supports the lives of every person on this planet and all of those foundations that we like to call our civilisation.' I want to say to these kids that I am sorry for my generation, probably the first generation of politicians in the world that has all the information at its hands to act and yet, collectively, is failing the future and failing these kids. I am sorry about that, even though there are some in this place who are trying to drive and demand stronger action to address the breakdown of our climate. Their time will come, and they will do a better job than those of us who sit in this place collectively today. I very much look forward to that day.
I rise to put on the record two matters. I will commence with a significant development with regard to the Australian Association of National Advertisers. Millions of Australian women have flicked through magazines—and I'm sure that Senator Hume and Senator McKenzie would be amongst those who have done this—and pored over images of celebrities and models. Alongside those images were stories of advice and headlines promising we would achieve our 'sexiest body ever'. I also want to acknowledge Senator Claire Moore is here. I don't know if any of us would be seduced by such headlines, but they are nonetheless a part of the reality that we are often exposed to just by being women in the modern world who see this kind of literature around us.
But, with the rise of social media and the persistence of digital connectivity, Australian women of all ages can endlessly scroll through curated images of toned models, celebrities and social media influencers. While social media can be great for connecting with loved ones, we know that it also facilitates the consumption of imagery that can be damaging for men's and women's body image. Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, as the father of young men and women, I'm sure that you're very aware that this is an issue that impacts on families in a very significant way in our time. Men are met with images of chiselled torsos and strong sculpted limbs. You know it: it's called the 'Adonis ideal'. Women face a barrage of perfection—perfect hair, perfect teeth, perfect skin, perfect bodies and curves in all the 'right' places.
The pressure to imitate these body types that often become idealised can be harmful to our mental, physical and emotional health, and it is well established that this can be associated with a development of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders, which affect over one million Australian men and women. Of all psychiatric illnesses—and I stress this—eating disorders have amongst the highest mortality rates. A lot of the time the portrayal of these 'ideal bodies' is often unattainable or only attainable through unhealthy practices thanks to digital alteration. You've seen it before: the model's waist has been tightened and it is disproportionate to the rest of their body. It is literally impossible to look like that and it has been often idealised, I think, across many generations in the Barbie doll body shape. Millions of Australian women have flipped through magazines and pored over images of celebrities and models. Alongside those images were stories, advice and headlines promising we would achieve those very sexy body images. With the rise of social media, we know that the challenge of this is going to cause more and more problems for us.
The reason I want to make this speech today, though, is to applaud a significant change in some of the attitudes and to make a noise of applause in congratulations to the Australian Association of National Advertisers. It is with some joy that I can say the advertising industry has heard a number of calls that I and Labor, over the last decade, have been making with regard to action on this vital matter. Just a few weeks ago, the Australian Association of National Advertisers, the AANA, launched an updated code of ethics, with a practice note written to assist advertisers in their understanding of how the code of ethics applies to the portrayal of body image in advertising. This new note prohibits advertising that depicts unrealistic bodies. Advertising that provides an unrealistic body image by portraying body shapes or features that are unattainable through healthy practices, which is not justifiable in the context of the product or the service being advertised, may no longer be permissible.
This is a huge win in the pursuit of good mental health and positive body image. Practically, it means tightening a model's waist disproportionately to the rest of their body may be a breach of the code of ethics. Importantly, the code is technology-neutral, which means that this will apply to all advertisements, including on social media—a medium which advertisers are increasingly using thanks to the rise of influencers. If an ad is found in breach, it must be removed and never used again. This is an important step in addressing the root causes of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Whilst I welcome this move with open arms, I look forward to seeing the effect of this new code and will be keeping a very watchful eye on how its enforceability plays out in practice.
I'm also going to make another call for action. This time, it's for all those citizens who might be listening to or watching this broadcast. I offer encouragement that we all have a role to play in creating a healthy society. I'm calling on you to report ads that you feel are not complying with such a code of ethics. If you see them on Facebook or Instagram or in magazines, please make a complaint to the Ads Standards board. If you have difficulty in doing that, I encourage you to contact me and I'll be happy to put you in touch with them. Certainly, I'm going to be keeping my eyes open and on the lookout for facial features and body shapes that cannot be attained through healthy practices, because, thankfully, this is no longer permissible. Together we can do this. We are the community and we can reset the dial on prevailing community standards.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the significant leadership from the Labor team, led on this issue by Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, who really put eating disorders front and foremost in discussion in this country.
And Kate Lundy!
Absolutely. Indeed, Senator Kate Lundy. These two women really made this an issue that we have considered. Sadly, there have not been adequate solutions. I note that Minister Hunt has made a number of comments around eating disorders. Last year, on 30 November, he made a landmark speech in which he indicated that there would be a significant advancement in the Medicare Benefits Schedule to provide an adequate form of MBS items to deal with the reality of eating disorders that affect so many in our community. I note that he promised to deliver that within a year. It's now past 30 November 2018. I called on the minister earlier this week and I once again call on him to honour that commitment he has made to the Australian public.
I'd also like, in the time remaining to me, to recognise life membership of Cheryl Cassell and Joe de Bruyn—firstly Cheryl Cassell, our SDA New South Wales branch president. Cheryl has recently retired from her job at Woolworths, in Nowra, after many years of working in the retail industry. She started working in the retail industry at Woolworths Riverwood in the 1960s and has served SDA members from the shop floor as a workplace delegate at Woolworths Nowra since 1987, over 31 years. She's been an SDA New South Wales branch counsellor for over 16 years, an SDA national counsellor and, more recently, the SDA New South Wales branch president. Cheryl has displayed the qualities of strength, dignity and perseverance that are so admirable in people who serve those around them. She's certainly known for her directness as well.
Also presented with life membership of the SDA union was Joe de Bruyn. The national council of the SDA met a little while ago in Brisbane. The national council meeting was particularly significant in the life of their union as it marked the retirement of Joe de Bruyn, the national president. He was departing from all his offices of the SDA after 44 years of faithful service to the members of the SDA. He was national secretary for 36 years and national president for the last four years. Joe originally came to Sydney for a week—and left 16 years later, including after spending 12 years as both the SDA's New South Wales branch secretary and the national secretary, from 1984 to 1996. Even in semiretirement he's one of the busiest people you will ever meet, yet he still has time to listen to others.
He's on the board of Rest Super and six of its subcommittees. He's a director on the board of another superannuation body linked to Rest and he's on the board of a not-for-profit centre. He's also the chairman of the board of trustees at a local university and, until a few weeks ago, was the national president of the SDA. His is a life of public service that deserves acknowledgement. Joe has always been fearless, standing up for his principles and for his members. He's an all-round generally outstanding person who continues to make a contribution to Australian public life.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to put those remarks on the record.
Senate adjourned at 20:54