I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I will move on.
I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard and to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
MORRISON MINISTRY
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the appointment of Senator Reynolds as the Minister for Defence Industry and the Minister for Emergency Management and North Queensland Recovery.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate––
(a) records its condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Al Noor and Linwood Mosques by an Australian citizen in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 that claimed 50 innocent lives as they came to prayer, and our grief for and solidarity with the people of New Zealand who have suffered this terrible and appalling assault on the quiet peace of their nation;
(b) records its sorrow and sympathy for the 50 lives lost on 15 March, for those still fighting for their lives, and for their families;
(c) expresses its solidarity with the Muslim community of Christchurch, New Zealand and our own nation at this time of affliction;
(d) honours the courage and presence of first responders, and all who came to help in whatever way they could;
(e) abhors racism and religious intolerance, acknowledge and celebrate the diversity and harmony of our Australian people and our respect for people from all faiths, cultures, ethnicities and nationalities that has made Australia one of the world's most successful immigration nations and multicultural societies; and
(f) reaffirms our commitment as Australians to peace over violence, innocence over evil, understanding over extremism, liberty over fear and love over hate.
It is just over a century now since on the shores of Gallipoli and in theatres across Europe the Anzacs forged that most enduring and precious of ties with our allies, our friends and, as the Prime Minister has said, our family in New Zealand. That experience, that shared sacrifice and loss, built a bond to last the ages. In the more than 100 years since then our two nations have grown ever closer. Many New Zealanders treat Australia as their second home and, likewise, many of our fellow citizens live and are welcomed across the Tasman.
Ours are two nations united by so much more than geography. We are united by a common history and a common set of values. That is why the horrific attacks at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques affected us so deeply. It is why we rallied together, as senators, as parliamentarians and as Australians, to so totally condemn that vile act and the repulsive white supremacist ideology that inspired it. It is why the hand we extend in sympathy is not just that of a neighbour but of one dear friend grieving for the suffering of another.
There must be no mistaking it: the Christchurch attacks were crimes committed against innocent men, women and children; people who were active contributors in their community and nation as students, business owners, parents, sportspeople and more. But there was also an attack on an idea: the idea that people can celebrate diversity, not abhor it; the idea that a nation can be home to people of a great diversity of different faiths, races and creeds and find strength in that difference, not weakness.
Christchurch is a beautifully welcoming city: a city in which people seek to live their lives, raise their families and practise their faith in safety and security; a city in which people should be confident that they will be accepted for who they are, not maligned, not attacked and most certainly not killed. But Christchurch is also a city of great resilience. In recent years it has been no stranger, sadly, to heartache, be it as a result of a natural disaster or, as on 15 March, at the hands of a terrorist individual. We are deeply saddened by the hurt that the Christchurch community is experiencing. We also know that, for all the pain of the moment, its people are strong and know what it means to grow as a community in the wake of even the worst tragedies. The atrocity in Christchurch is a grave reminder that evil remains with us today and that all of us, in our words and in our deeds, have a responsibility to fight it; a responsibility to, as this motion states, choose 'peace over violence, innocence over evil, understanding over extremism, liberty over fear and'—above all else—'love over hate'.
To all those still grieving for their lost loved ones or recovering from injuries sustained on that grim afternoon: the thoughts and prayers of this parliament and the people that it serves are with you. To the Muslim communities of Christchurch, New Zealand and Australia: we stand in solidarity with you. Your right to observe your faith is that which should be enjoyed by every person everywhere. It is inalienable and undeniable. And to all those who fan the flames of racism, hatred and violence: we utterly condemn and reject you.
In their moment of suffering, the charity and kindness that the people of Christchurch and New Zealand have displayed are proof that their values, and ours, of tolerance, compassion and diversity cannot be shaken. In taking so many innocent lives, the perpetrator of this act sought to divide New Zealand. But he has been defied, and the people of New Zealand have united. Their defiance is also shown through the strength displayed by first responders and others who saved so many lives that day. Among them were Naim Rasheed, who made the ultimate sacrifice while trying to thwart the attack, and Abdul Aziz Wahabzadah, who put his life on the line to distract the attacker. We can only guess how many were saved by their brave acts. But we can be absolutely sure that, in their courage and example, we saw the very worst of human nature being met by the very best.
I also commend Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for the resolve and compassion that she has displayed in the wake of the shooting. As she has comforted her nation and steered it through its darkest days, she has won the affection and admiration of many in Australia and around the world.
On the day of the attacks, Prime Minister Morrison spoke of numbness and shock. There are some acts too evil to comprehend, acts which jar not just with the nation's values but with human decency itself. Now, over two weeks on, we reaffirm our commitment to push past that numbness and tackle this evil, both with our friends in New Zealand and here at home, by building bridges between communities and ensuring that all people can feel safe in the observance of their faith. We can repudiate the Christchurch attacker's aims and make it clear that his sick cause is doomed to fail.
In moving this motion, I put on the record my gratitude and that of the government for the opposition's strong support and for that of so many other colleagues on the crossbench. It has been heartening to see so many political and community leaders from across Australia cross the Tasman in recent weeks to convey our people's sympathies to those still reeling from the attack. Sometimes events unfold which have a moral weight that transcends partisan politics. This is certainly one such very sad occasion.
Over the past two weeks, in tributes and vigils, in words written and donations given, the Australian people have expressed their total solidarity with our friends in New Zealand and with the Muslim communities in both of our nations. They rightly expect those they have sent here to reflect their will and turn it resolutely into action. It is with that in mind, and with our sincere sympathies again for all those who have suffered loss as a result of this horrific attack, that I commend this motion to the Senate.
I rise on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to support the condolence motion moved by Senator Cormann, and I hope that the bipartisan support we offer will be reflected ultimately in the support of the broadest possible vote across this chamber.
Just over two weeks ago, 50 New Zealanders were murdered in a tragic act of violence—mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, daughters and sons gunned down at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques in Christchurch, killed in their place of worship as they came together for Friday prayers. So I begin by expressing our compassion, our sympathy and our support to friends and families of all lost and all who are injured and recovering. We stand in solidarity with the people of New Zealand, with the Muslim community and with Muslim peoples everywhere.
The stories of the victims are heartbreaking: teenagers and children as young as three and four years old; a brave woman who helped to save others, other women and children, but was shot dead when she went back into the Al Noor Mosque to help her wheelchair-bound husband; people who had come to New Zealand as refugees, escaping war, civil strife and conflict in their own home countries, to be attacked in a place of peace and sanctuary—and they were attacked because of their faith. The attacks were horrific acts of violence. They were acts of terrorism and, at their core, they were acts of hatred—and this we must understand: these were acts of hatred. The terrorist was welcomed into the mosque as a brother, and he responded with hate and with bullets. It is an act of terrorism, an act of hatred, that has shocked this nation.
For Australians, New Zealanders are family, and we mourn with them, and our distress has been magnified by the fact that the right-wing violent extremist responsible for this act of terror is an Australian—an extremist, right-wing, violent Australian terrorist. I hope I speak for all of us when I say this man does not represent Australian values. This man is not who we are. To the Muslim community in New Zealand and across our nation, we say: we know you are experiencing pain and sorrow, and we stand with you. We abhor these acts of extremist violence. We reject the extreme right-wing ideology, the hatred and the intolerance that led to and fuelled these acts of extremist violence, and, most importantly, we reject hatred in all its forms.
Together we stand for Australian values: inclusion, acceptance and respect; a belief in equality; the rejection of racism; the rejection of prejudice; the rejection of division. These are the values of our Australia. This is the nation in which we have faith. And it is the responsibility of all leaders—political, community, religious—to stand united against hatred, because we saw, tragically, in the loss of life in Christchurch where hatred leaves us. We know these truths: a nation divided is never stronger; making others lesser, fanning prejudice and discrimination has never made a nation safer; and no group within our society is immune from the effects of hatred. We know it is the responsibility of all of us to stand against hatred in all its forms and embrace tolerance, acceptance and honour our shared humanity.
In New Zealand we have seen the power of leadership. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated the power of a leader who stands firm in the face of hate and fear, a leader who demonstrates love and gives hope, a leader who rejects division and embraces unity. Speaking at the Christchurch memorial on Friday, Prime Minister Ardern spoke as this kind of leader. She said:
Racism exists, but it is not welcome here.
She went on to say:
An assault on the freedom of any one of us who practices their faith or religion, is not welcome here.
Violence, and extremism in all its forms, is not welcome here.
And over the last two weeks we have shown that, you have shown that, in your actions.
This is the leadership that we must all demonstrate if we are to end the cycle of extremism, to end the cycle of hatred that underpins this. And it is leadership that has been reflected by and enhanced by the actions and words of the New Zealand people, the people of New Zealand, in how they have responded to this.
The power of our shared humanity to overcome hate was on display most powerfully by Farid Ahmed. Farid is the husband of the brave woman about whom I spoke. Farid and Hosne were in separate rooms at the Al Noor mosque and, after leading women and children to safety, Hosne returned to the mosque to help Farid, who uses a wheelchair and could not flee. She was shot and killed. He survived. Speaking at the memorial on Friday, Farid spoke about the journey he had been on in the two weeks following the attack. He said:
This heart doesn't like that the pain I have gone through that any human being should go through that kind of pain.
And he went on to say:
That's why I have chosen peace. I have chosen love and I have forgiven.
Each human being is my brother, is my sister. This is my faith and this is what Allah has taught me. That's why I do not hate him and I cannot hate him. I cannot hate anyone.
Farid demonstrates the power of love to overcome pain and sadness. Let us honour his graciousness and let us respond in kind.
In the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks, the Imam Hasan Centre issued a statement. It is a statement I think is notable for its graciousness, and one which I have drawn on in the days following the attack:
It is times like this that we lose hope and doubt humanity, when people of faith come under attack in such a way, it shows us how low humanity can fall. However, it never ceases to amaze how far humanity can rise after such despicable events.
United as a community, we can overcome these barbaric events wherever they happen. Divided we become barbaric ourselves and the innocent lives lost around the world should be a sign for us to unite against hate.
This is a moment, this is the time to show those who seek to divide us just how far humanity can rise. In the words of a Maori proverb: he aha te mea nui o te ao. He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. It means: 'What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.'
To the people of New Zealand and, in particular, the New Zealand Islamic community: your Australian family grieves with you. And, like you, we mourn the tragic loss of life. We stand with you in this time of sorrow and sadness and we commit to standing against hatred in all its forms. And we commit to working together towards a society where all are welcome and all may live in peace and security. My hope is that as leaders we will, once again, work together to articulate and defend the Australian values and principles that underpin who we are and what we believe: the values of inclusion, acceptance, respect and equality. Let us choose unity, not division. Let us choose respect, not prejudice. Let us choose hope, not fear. And, above all, let us all choose love, not hate. In doing so we make our nation stronger, at home and in the world.
I rise on behalf of the Greens to also pay our condolences to the families of the victims of the horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. These were people who were killed at a moment of contemplation, at a moment of deep reflection, at a time when they were in communion with their God—killed at their most vulnerable.
Amongst those 50 who lost their lives or were injured in the terrorist attack were people who hailed from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Syria, Pakistan and Palestine. Yes, they were Muslims, but they were also New Zealanders. They are people like Naeem Rashid, who lunged at the gunman to try to save the lives of his fellow worshippers and who was murdered in the process; people like Khaled Mustafa, originally from Syria, who was killed alongside his 16-year-old son, Hamza; people like Hamza's schoolmate Sayyad Milne, who was just 14 years old; and people like Mohammed Daoud Nabi, a 71-year-old man from war-torn Afghanistan who was heard, as the killer walked through the doors of the mosque, to say in greeting the words: 'Welcome, brother.'
We owe it to every single person whose life was stolen that day to remember their names, to remember their lives, to remember the lives that will go unlived because of the horrendous actions of a terrorist. We owe it to remember them not just because they're Muslims—although they were—and not just because they are New Zealanders and we share a deep relationship with that country but because they were one of us, because they were part of our collective humanity.
Like the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition, we express our thoughts and sympathies to those whose lives were stolen and to all those whose lives were left behind. But, as we said shortly afterwards and as we continue to say, thoughts and sympathies now are not enough. Thoughts and sympathies won't protect our Muslim community from the daily abuses and hatred that they experience. They won't protect people from the hate speech that we continue to see right here and around the world. They won't help heal the deep divides in our country. Now is a time for solidarity, for us to come together as a nation, and for some true reflection. We must acknowledge how it was that an Australian could be responsible for such a horrific crime. We must all face up to the deeply uncomfortable truths about how racism and xenophobia have been exploited by the voices of hate, those who seek to divide us. And there is no escaping it, Mr President. Some of those voices reside here in this chamber.
Our parliament should be a place that shows Australia at its best—members of parliament elected by the people and entrusted with the powers to pass laws to make this country more equal, more generous, more prosperous and more welcoming. It should be a parliament where people from across the political spectrum seek common ground for the good of the nation and where we treat each other and all those around us with dignity and respect, always remembering that there is much more that unites us than divides us, always remembering the people who elected us to this place. That's the kind of parliament we should be building; that's the kind of parliament that the Australian community expect of us. Over the coming days, we'll talk about how we can go some way towards achieving that goal.
Now is not the time to deepen the divisions in our society. Now is the time for unity and for decent people to come together for a renewed recognition of our common humanity. We've seen so many examples of such leadership in New Zealand right now. From the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who has been a voice of compassion and a voice for peace, right through to all those members of the New Zealand community who have come together to throw a collective embrace across the victims so deeply affected. Here in Australia we must come together to support one another and to stand strong against racism, against hatred and against bigotry. We must be honest with ourselves and realise how much work we still need to do. We need to take some concrete steps to ensure that our parliament—indeed, our nation—is coming together against violence, against hatred and against bigotry and standing in solidarity with all those people right across the world who want a more peaceful and just society.
I rise to speak briefly on behalf of Centre Alliance in support of the motion. Having been born in New Zealand and mostly raised here in Australia, I am fortunate enough to have experienced the best of both countries. To the Muslim communities of New Zealand, of Australia and, indeed, worldwide, I want to emphasise how very shocked and sorry fair-minded Australians and New Zealanders are about this atrocity. It does not reflect who we are or what we are as a nation, and today's condolence motion acknowledges Australia's belief in this.
We, as a parliament and as a nation, must redouble our efforts to promote harmony and inclusiveness throughout all of our communities. We must shine a light on those who sow division and xenophobia for their own gain, political or otherwise. We must affirm that, as a pluralist and secular nation, Australia does not favour one race over another, one culture over another or one religion over another. How we respond to these horrific attacks will ultimately define us as a nation. Now is the time for us to reject extremism in all its forms and embrace unity, kindness and respect in the national interest. It starts with this motion before us today, and I commend it to the chamber.
I seek to add my voice and the voice of the Australian Conservatives to this motion. The senseless and tragic events in Christchurch have taken a great deal from the national psyche and has caused us to reflect upon how anyone can rationalise or justify such abhorrent and sickening behaviour. The victims of this tragic event are not just resident in the mosque; they are resident throughout New Zealand and in Australia. My heart, my prayers and my thoughts go out to all of them, and I hope that the senselessness of this waste and this loss of life is not lost on any of us or any in our community.
I stand on behalf of the Nationals to support wholeheartedly the eloquent, heartfelt and honest words spoken by the leaders in the Senate—the representatives of the Australian people—here in the chamber today. Al-Salaam Alaikum.
To our friends, our families, our allies and our neighbours:
God of Nations at Thy feet,
In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our free land.
Guard Pacific's triple star
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand.
The freedom of religion underpins both our nation and theirs. It is at the very heart of who we are and how such dynamic and multicultural communities like both Australia and New Zealand can also be so successful. I think that 50 people gunned down whilst praying peacefully, practising their faith in a free land, shocked and appalled us all. We stand with New Zealand against extremism, wherever it is found, as we have on foreign shores as allies and comrades for over a century.
Shaken: I think our united solidarity as communities has been a source of solace, both for Islamic communities and the wider populations of both our nations. That has bolstered us all; the strength of our united diversity has been one of the outcomes of this tragedy and I think it has been a source of solace. We have shared that around our shared values.
This has happened because of strong leaders—in the national Islamic community, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and local Islamic leaders. Even in regional cities of New Zealand, like Hamilton, they are bringing the community together with barbecues and open days at mosques et cetera. They are refusing to be moved in the face of this terrorist.
We mourn with you. We know that the spirit you have shown through this adversity will guide and strengthen you in the face of what can sometimes be seen as a pervasive and all-encompassing fear in this modern era. We stand against it. We stand united with our New Zealand Islamic and non-Islamic brothers and sisters, and we reject terrorism in all its forms.
May I acknowledge and thank all of the leaders who have spoken today for their words.
The events of 15 March shook New Zealand, shook Australia and shook the world. We were all horrified, devastated and appalled by what happened in Christchurch: an attack on innocent people in a place of worship. The attack on Christchurch was an attack on all of us. It was a despicable, right-wing extremist attack—horrifically, perpetrated by an Australian—that was designed to instil fear and hatred, and to incite fear and hatred. It was an attack that was designed to divide us. We will let it do neither.
Australia rejects everything this attacker stood for. His views are abhorrent to the fundamental values for which we stand in our nation. Religious freedom and tolerance are fundamental to open, multicultural and resilient societies, and Australia and New Zealand are two of the most outstanding examples of such societies in the world. Our differences are what make us stronger—our compassion, our understanding and acceptance of others is what enables us to flourish as individuals.
In the days since the attacks on the Al Noor and Linwood mosques, we've been somewhat heartened by the spontaneous acts of kindness across our nation. Australians of every faith and no faith from across the country came together in the aftermath of the attacks to remember those who lost their lives in this massacre and to show solidarity, including with our Muslim friends and neighbours. From those who have placed flowers in front of mosques to those who offered to stand guard where people worshipped and to those who've paid tribute and prayed across our nations the message is clear: tolerance will prevail. As the Prime Minister said at the Lakemba mosque in Sydney the day after the attack: 'What we say today is no. Peace and love will triumph.'
We live in not only a diverse and successful nation but the most diverse region in the world. Across South-East Asia we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, to name only a few, living in peace, overwhelmingly, side by side. We celebrate and cherish that diversity. It's part of what makes our region unique and special. In the wake of Christchurch, Australia renews its commitment to religious freedom and to the friendship and understanding that unites the people of our region. In practical terms, we continue to support our neighbours in New Zealand as they investigate the circumstances surrounding this atrocity. New Zealand has world-class police and medical forensic staff, and our teams are honoured to be working with them.
Our thoughts and our feelings turn often to and remain with the victims and their families and with the community of Christchurch, who continue to be deeply impacted by this senseless and horrific attack. It's our duty to ensure that we do everything within our powers to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. It is our responsibility as leaders and as parliamentarians to do everything in our power to ensure that.
Like many of you, I'm sure I will always remember where I was and what I was doing when the news of the attacks came to me. I'll never forget the overwhelming feeling of pure shock and horror. I'll never forget the tears that the pain caused to our neighbour and the pain caused to families, communities and followers of the Muslim faith in New Zealand, here and elsewhere. I've reached out to counterparts around the world whose country's citizens were also lost in this attack. I've conveyed our condolences and assured them that this person's actions do not represent the values for which Australia stands.
Now, more than ever, we must come together to encourage tolerance and respect between faiths and across our communities. There will always be those who seek to drive us apart, but our work is to ensure that their hate only strengthens our resilience, tolerance, compassion and cooperation at home and across our region.
It is 18 days since the Christchurch massacre—18 days since the attacker took 50 lives; 18 days since he gunned down people in peaceful Friday prayers. It has been 18 long days for those who lost their loved ones that day. They face a lifetime without those who have been brutally taken away from them. This most shocking of crimes has reverberated around the world. Like so many others, I have cried many times since the news of the attack. We as a community have been shaken to the core. We are shattered and we are still grieving for the family and friends who lost their loved ones.
Too often the media coverage since the attack has shifted focus away from the victims and targets and their loved ones towards those who continue to foster hate. I would like to read the names of the 50 people who were murdered in Christchurch. Abdukadir Elmi, a 70-year-old father of four from Somalia, was killed at the Al Noor mosque. Abdul Fattah Qasem, 60 years old, was a respected elder in the Muslim community. He helped with interpretation for refugees and migrants from the Middle East. Also killed were Ahmed Abdel Ghani, 68 years old; Ali Elmadani, 66 years old; Amjad Hamid, 67 years old; Ansi Alibava, 24 years old; Ashraf Ali, 58 years old; Ashraf Al-Masri; and Ashraf Morsi, 54 years old, father of two. Asif Vora, 56 years old, was killed at the Al Noor mosque alongside his son, Ramiz. Atta Elayyan, 33 years, was the goalkeeper for New Zealand's futsal team. There were Mohammed Daoud Nabi, 71 years old; Farhaj Ahsan, 30 years old; and Ghulam Husain, 66 years old. Hafiz Musa Vali Patel, 59 years old, was critically injured in the attack and rushed to hospital, but he died later. Hamza Mustafa, just 16 years old, was shot as he prayed alongside his father. Also killed was Haroon Mehmood, 40 years old, father of two. Hosne Ahmed, 44, was in the women's area of the Al Noor mosque when the attacks started. Hussein al-Umari, 35 years old, died while challenging the gunman. There were also Hussein Moustafa, 70 years old; Junaid Kara/Ismail, 36 years old; and Kamel Darweesh, 39 years old. Karam Bibi, 63 years old, was killed with her husband, Ghulam Husain, and her son, Zeeshan Raza, at Linwood Islamic Centre. Khaled Mustafa, 44 years old, died in hospital after being shot at the Al Noor mosque. His teenage son, Hamza, was also killed. Linda Armstrong, 65 years old, had moved to Christchurch to be closer to her family. Maheboob Khokhar, 65 years old, was visiting New Zealand for the first time with his wife to see his son, who had left India in 2010. Others who died were Matiullah Safi, 55 years old; Mohammed Imran Khan, 47 years old; Omar Faruk, 36 years old, whose wife, Sanjida Zaman Heha, is in Bangladesh and is pregnant; Mohsen Mohammed Al Harbi, 63 years old; Mojammel Hoq, 30 years old; and Mounir Suleiman, 68 years old. Mucad Ibrahim was just three years old. This one just breaks my heart. The youngest victim of the attacker, he was visiting the mosque with his brother, Abdi, and their father, both of whom survived the attack. There were Lilik Abdul Hamid, 58 years old; Abdus Samad, 66 years old, a lecturer at Lincoln University, where he had studied for a PhD in the 1980s; Musa Nur Awale, 77 years old; and Naeem Rashid, 50 years old, originally from Abbottabad in Pakistan, whose eldest son, Talha, 21, was also killed in the attack. There were Osama Adnan Abu Kweik, 37 years old; Ozair Kadir, 25 years old; Ramiz Vora, 28 years old, who was killed with his father, Asif, in the Al Noor attack; Sayyad Milne, just 14 years old; Sohail Shahid, 40 years old; Syed Areeb Ahmed, 27 years old; and Syed Jahandad Ali, 34 years old. Talha Rashid, 21 years old, was the eldest son of Naeem Rashid, who was also killed in the attack. There were Tariq Omar, 24 years old; and Zakaria Bhuiya, 33 years old, who had taken the day off to celebrate his 33rd birthday at the mosque. There was Zeeshan Raza, 38 years old, the only son of Ghulam Husain and Karam Bibi, who were also killed in the attack. This whole family was massacred. Finally, there were Muhammad Haziq bin Mohd Tarmizi, just 17 years old, and Mohamad Moosi Mohamedhosen, 54 years old. We are still mourning and we are still grieving.
I also want to mention a survivor: Zaid Mustafa, a surviving son and brother. I cannot forget the image on our screens as he watched his father and his brother, the first of the victims to be buried. Grief and anguish were etched into his young face. He wept as he was wheeled into the funeral, and he cried that he didn't want to be left all alone in this world.
Naeem Rashid was filmed charging at the gunman in a bid to stop him. His 21-year-old son Talha was also killed. Naeem's wife, Amber, was trapped in a prayer room with about 30 other women and children as the attacker murdered their friends and families.
When 71-year-old Daoud Nabi opened the door of the mosque to the terrorist, he said, 'Hello, brother.' This is a very common way for Muslims to greet each other and to greet others. Imagine being the person who welcomed someone with these words, only to be shot and killed on the spot. These words and images will stay with us, perhaps forever.
Since the attack I have been to many vigils and I have been to many solidarity rallies. I have stood with my sisters and my brothers in the Muslim community. We have mourned for days, and I think we will continue to mourn for days longer. We have hugged each other a little tighter. We are grief stricken for our neighbours in New Zealand. We are also scared.
I do want to thank so many who have sent messages of love and support, and who have stood together in solidarity in these very difficult times over the last 18 days. This outpouring of support does mean a lot. Time does not heal all wounds. No days, months or years can ever hope to diminish the anguish and sorrow of Christchurch. No words can do justice to the pain of the survivors, the family and friends of the victims and our community. Right now, it feels as if no action could ever make right the wrongs that led to this point.
Many of the targets of this horrific terror in Christchurch were there after having fled war and persecution. Some were refugees. To pass through a lifetime of violence and persecution, flee your home and spend years building a new one in a new community only to lose your life to the violence of a hateful murderer is an incomprehensible tragedy.
But I do know that some people do not think of us Muslims as equal humans. In the midst of our grief, while we have been showered with love, we have also been bombarded with extraordinary hate and filth. If this does not reset the public debate; if this does not prompt a complete rethink of how we dehumanise Muslims in public debate then I really do not know what will.
Let us mourn and let us remember the targets of the Christchurch massacre. But let's also commit with absolute resolve to making sure such tragedy never happens again. The climate of hate and racism that led to this massacre cannot be allowed to go on. But this can only happen if everyone in here is genuinely reflecting on their responsibilities to foster love and to foster understanding for all, and acting purposefully for change.
I rise to add my support to this condolence motion. Before I start, I'd just like to thank Senator Faruqi for what was an incredibly heartfelt and tough speech to give in this place. If anybody in this room were to understand and know how shocking and horrifying the events on 15 March were, it would be Senator Faruqi. Senator Faruqi, of course, has had to live through this not just as a mother, not just as a member of the Muslim community, but as a leader in the Australian Muslim community. Thank you, Mehreen.
The horrors that we saw unfold in Christchurch sent a shockwave through New Zealand, Australia and the rest of the world. However, the most horrifying aspect was that some people weren't shocked at all. The conversations that I had with a number of members of the Muslim community in my home town of Adelaide in the days following the terrorist attack and the massacre were the most shocking of all. People were not surprised that something like this had eventually occurred. For so long, people have been asking us, as leaders and politicians, and members of the Australian media to take seriously the damage and the concern about the words used and the politics played over Muslim migration to this country. When you hear a 15-year-old or 16-year-old young woman or young man express that they're frightened because this could have happened in Adelaide, it should send the biggest shockwaves of all to us as leaders in this place.
This must be a moment of reckoning. As political leaders, whatever side of the fence we sit on, we must take more responsibility for how this issue is discussed and debated and what we can do to lead by example. We need to show compassion and unity and call out racism when we see it. The horror of what occurred in Christchurch, the horror of what occurred in those mosques that day—an attack on a group of people at their most vulnerable, at their most peaceful, at a time of intimacy between them and their god—is the most cowardly act of all.
The strength of leadership shown by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in the face of the attacks has been extraordinary, and it's been wonderful to hear people on all sides pay respect and regard to that leadership today. For all of us it's an opportunity to take more of a leaf out of Prime Minister Ardern's book. It strikes me, as I sit here listening to the speeches, that words are easy and action is much harder. We must use this as a moment of reckoning, because something has to change. When I hear a 14-year-old or 15-year-old girl say that she's scared to catch the bus—she couldn't go into the city in the week following the attack because she didn't know what people would say to her on the bus while she was wearing a headscarf—I know that that's not the Australia I want to live in, not the Australia I want my daughter to grow up in and not the Australia that any young girl should have to grow up in.
As political leaders we must use this as a moment of change. We must call out racism when we see it. We must lead by example. We must be prepared to stand up and stand tall and show that compassion, empathy, unity and celebration of diversity are what make us a strong nation, standing side by side with our New Zealand brothers and sisters, our cousins, and hand in hand, Muslim and non-Muslim Australians and global citizens. That's the leadership that we need to show. I don't want any young kid growing up in this country feeling that they are less simply because of their religion, the religion of their parents or the country which they may have come from. Every child in this country deserves to grow up knowing that they are loved for who they are, not what they're not.
Some people in this place have sought to use what happened in New Zealand for their own political gain—nastiness, vulgar statements. While today is not the day to take action on that, the day will come, and those people must be confronted, called out and isolated, because they are not Australian. They don't represent the values of our nation or the Australia that any of us want our children to grow up in.
It's a humbling privilege to be able to stand here this afternoon to send my love, for my heart to go out, to everyone who is grieving from this hateful, awful attack; to send my love to the friends and the families of those who were so brutally murdered; to send my love to the survivors, who are suffering so much, having survived and their lives having been changed completely forever; to send my love to the wider New Zealand Muslim community, who will be feeling the attacks on the people of their faith in New Zealand; to send my love to the wider New Zealand community, because this was an attack on New Zealanders, on New Zealand soil; to send my love to Muslims in Australia, because Australia and New Zealand are family, and the Muslims in Australia that I have spoken to over the last 2½ weeks feel so deeply the attack on their brothers and sisters in New Zealand; and to send my love to everyone in Australia and New Zealand, because this was an attack on all of us. In fact, it was an attack on our shared humanity and it was an attack that was based in Islamophobia and racism.
What we must learn from this attack is that we must reject that Islamophobia and racism everywhere in society, including in our parliaments. If this is not the time to take stock and to realise what this attack was based on, I don't know what will be. Fear and division are being used as a weapon by right-wing extremists, by the media and even by some politicians, including some sitting in this very chamber, to separate our communities and to fuel the fires of racism and Islamophobia. That hate-filled violence will continue to cost innocent lives unless we can commit ourselves wholeheartedly, completely, to take the hard actions to make sure that it changes. Together we have to unite—unite against hatred, wherever it is, particularly in online forums and where it appears in our communities. We have to tackle extremism in all of its forms. We have to work together and reaffirm and recognise the strength in our diversity, recognise the contribution that people from different cultures, different faiths, different language groups and different countries have made to our society.
Australia is an incredible success as a multicultural society, and it brings incredible richness to our lives. Whether we are Australians from First Nations people whose ancestors have walked this land for more than 40,000 years or refugees who have walked amongst us for just a few weeks, we need to reaffirm our belief that everyone in Australia is loved, and that they are recognised and supported for who they are. This is our Australia, where people from all over the world have come together to build a peaceful society that celebrates and supports all people for who they are, where we have no tolerance of prejudice and discrimination, and where we build bridges. Where we see those flames of division, we build bridges rather than letting them fester and letting that fear and that division enflame and grow in our society.
I call upon all of us to do everything we can. I was so pleased, in the days and weeks following, to be able to visit mosques, to reach out and to support and to hug and to send my love to my Muslim brothers and sisters. We must all take on doing that. We must be building that completely, to be protecting our vibrant and diverse society and supporting those people, supporting minority groups, listening, taking hate threats seriously and redoubling our efforts to address them. So I'm standing here today, sending my love, standing with Muslim friends, the Muslim community here in Australia, in New Zealand, around the world, during this very difficult time, and I commit to working to ensure that our community is safe and welcoming for everyone.
I rise today to speak as a Queenslander, and I think that's important given the extremely hurtful remarks that were made in the wake of this incident by some other representatives from my beautiful and warm-hearted state. And I rise to share, on behalf of so many Queenslanders, that we share your heartbreak and we are so desperately sorry for the events that took the lives too early of so many decent human beings. What I would like to put on the record today is my immense gratitude for the strength of Queenslanders who, in the days following this awful slaughter, really came together and embraced our Muslim brothers and sisters, embraced people from all types of religion and diversity and just stood together stronger as one.
I was really blessed to be at the Islamic College of Brisbane just 48 hours after this hideous murder. It was such a powerful and moving day, and the tears streamed down our faces as we heard from some of the leaders in the Islamic community—in fact, from leaders from all faiths—and I think the thing that struck me the most was the power of those words and the message of forgiveness. That was such a strong statement to make given the terrible consequences that had just been wreaked on this community. That message of love and forgiveness spoke so deeply to the strength and resilience of these warm and wonderful people, and so I wanted to thank not only the people of this community, who have drawn upon that strength and that grace and that power of forgiveness, but also I wanted to thank all of the Queenslanders who've come to rallies, to vigils, to prayer services, to any gathering where we have shown that everyone is welcome here in our community, that we are stronger together and that those minority voices of hate and division and fear and small-mindedness don't represent the majority of us.
I want to give this opportunity to the spokesperson for the Islamic Council of Queensland, Ali Kadri, to place some words on the record through me, his representative for Queensland. Ali says:
[The] Muslim community of QLD is overwhelmed by the support from our fellow Australians from all walks of life. The strength of our common bond has not been broken despite the actions of individual extremists and excuses from their sympathisers. However, this incident is not simply an act of terror by an individual, it is a result of years of demonisation of Muslims by shock jocks, some media commentators and some politicians. The brunt of this demonisation is faced by Australian Muslims in the form of an abusive comment and many times in the form of a physical attack. Muslim parents are afraid to send their kids to Islamic school and to mosques. Many wives are not sure if it's safe for their husbands to pray at a mosque and many husbands fear for the safety of their wives when they are shopping.
Ali goes on to say:
I would urge all politicians who have ever used politics of fear or harbour dislike of Muslims and Islam, to step into a shoe of those fathers, mothers, husbands and wives. If you still don't feel any empathy, at least stop and think how your words are radicalising people like the terrorist who has killed so many innocent people and destroyed so many families, including his own.
I just want to send a message of solidarity to Ali, to the Islamic Council of Queensland and to all Queenslanders that we stand with them. We are stronger together. You deserve to be safe. You are welcome. You are us. And we love you.
I would like to state on the record as a One Nation senator and Western Australian that I condemn the terror, pain and violence inflicted on Christchurch last month, which caused the loss of 50 lives and hurt so many more. I offer my condolences to all the families affected and to the people of Christchurch.
I'd like to note that the Liberal Democrats agree with what's been said this morning and we offer our condolences.
I rise to provide my wholehearted support of the many wonderful words that have been said today by all of the senators who have spoken. For some, it's been quite emotional—for us here in this chamber and for those listening. I've been a passionate advocate of multiculturalism in Australia, through not just my life here in Australia but also in our region and beyond.
I'm very much brought to also consider the sister city status of my home town, Adelaide, as a further indication to me and others in Adelaide of the fact that there is no 'other' when we consider what occurred in Christchurch. It is 'us', because we in Adelaide are a sister city and have exactly the same community within our multicultural state and have similar brothers and sisters, friends, long-term South Australians and new arrivals.
I wish, therefore, to send out—as has been done today already—messages of love and peace after this senseless act. This is an opportunity, as we have seen in the last weeks, for the power of love to transcend the senseless vicissitudes of hate. I have welcomed the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of myself but also of the many others in this chamber and the people I know that have been affected by this tragedy. Thank you.
I ask honourable senators to join in a moment of silence to signify assent to the motion.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I am pleased to introduce this bill to amend the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991.
The amendments give Australia's export credit agency, Efic, a new overseas infrastructure financing power, and an extra $1 billion in callable capital. These initiatives will support infrastructure projects in the region that have a benefit for Australia or Australians, as well as enable Efic to write larger loans including within its current export mandate.
The amendments will enhance Efic's ability to support Australian businesses and to drive stronger commercial links between Australia and our region, by enabling Efic to support more and larger overseas infrastructure projects.
Our engagement with the region and the Pacific is vitally important.
This legislation forms part of the Liberal-National Government's package of measures to broaden and deepen our engagement in the Pacific and the region. Australia has a long history of cooperation with our Pacific neighbours. We want to work with our Pacific island partners to build a Pacific region that is secure strategically, stable economically and sovereign politically.
This bill enhances our regional commitment especially to infrastructure. It delivers on the major new initiatives announced by the Prime Minister to address the infrastructure needs of the Pacific region by boosting Efic's ability to support Australian commercial participation in Pacific infrastructure as well as the timely implementation of the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. These measures form part of the Liberal-National Government's significant new package of security, economic, diplomatic and people to people initiatives that will build on our strong partnerships in the Pacific.
As the Liberal-National Government's 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper outlined, the stability and progress of the Pacific region are of fundamental importance to Australia. No single country can tackle the challenges on its own. The bill will allow Efic to finance essential overseas infrastructure such as telecommunications, energy, transport and water where it is commercially viable. This will complement the Liberal-National Government's new Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, which will stretch our aid dollars even further.
Better infrastructure in the Pacific will contribute to stronger growth across the region including in Australia. Productive and sustainable infrastructure is mutually beneficial.
The demand for infrastructure financing in our region is large.
The Asian Development Bank estimates the Pacific region needs US$3.1 billion in infrastructure investment per year to 2030. It estimates Southeast Asia needs a further US$210 billion in infrastructure investment per year by 2030.
Efic can play an important role to help meet these needs.
When projects have strong commercial prospects, they should be funded commercially. Efic has a track record of supporting infrastructure projects on its commercial account, like the US$19 billion PNG LNG project that is the largest ever private sector investment in PNG and will bring significant economic benefit to PNG and provincial governments via tax and royalties, local landholders and local businesses.
The bill grants Efic a new power to finance overseas infrastructure projects based on a broad Australian benefit test, enabling it to finance overseas infrastructure projects that result in positive outcomes for Australia, both now and in the future. This will enable Efic to take account of previously unrecognised benefits that will flow to Australia or Australians over time as a result of Efic financing, such as greater Australian participation in supply chains, access to new markets for Australian businesses, more Australian jobs, payments, dividends or other financial proceeds from overseas to Australia, or stronger relationships with our regional partners, especially in the Pacific.
Using an Australian benefit test, Efic could finance a wide range of infrastructure projects in the region. For example, in the telecommunications sector, Efic's new power would enable it to finance projects that improve regional connectivity through greater broadband internet access. This benefits Australians by reducing the cost of doing business and increasing our exports to the region, encouraging economic integration, and e-commerce opportunities. In the energy sector, Efic's new power would enable it to finance the construction of LNG receiving terminals, leading to increased energy exports or engineering services.
The bill increases Efic ' s callable capital by $1 billion on its commercial account.
A larger capital base will allow Efic to provide more commercially meaningful financing offers, given the total size of debt financing required for regional infrastructure projects is large, and also to support Australian exporters more broadly.
It will give Efic the commercial flexibility and credibility it requires to offer finance to project proponents, sovereign borrowers and financing partners, who require the confidence that Efic's support is meaningful and can be sustained over often long repayment terms. It will enable Efic to finance more infrastructure projects in PNG, one of our most important neighbours. Efic is already approaching its country lending limit for PNG and just one more infrastructure project could see it once again reach this limit, constraining Efic's ability to take up future financings and the jobs and opportunities that will flow to both Australia and PNG from this.
The increase in callable capital is a commitment from the Liberal-National Government to create opportunities for Australia and Australian businesses through Efic. The increase in callable capital will bring Efic's total capital base to nearly $1.7 billion, around a 150% increase, comprising $1.2 billion in callable capital and almost $475 million in cash capital. The increase will enable Efic to provide more financing over time within an unchanged, regulated upper limit for the contingent liability of $6.5 billion.
Increasing Efic's callable capital by legislative amendment, rather than legislative instrument, will provide the higher degree of certainty infrastructure project proponents, borrowers and commercial financing partners require when they look to Efic to assist with financing gaps.
The bill will enable Efic to help address the infrastructure needs of the Pacific region.
It will complement the new Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific (AIFFP). Efic will have the lead where there are stronger commercial prospects as Efic's financing will be on a commercial basis. The AIFFP will boost Australia's support for infrastructure development in the region by combining loans with grants on a case by case basis. The bill will also enable Efic to assist with the timely implementation of the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific by administering AIFFP loans.
The Government will detail how Efic's new power will support the AIFFP and be applied in our region including the Pacific under a new Statement of Expectations.
The Government remains committed to ensuring Efic delivers for Australian exporters, retaining a focus on support for SMEs.
Efic will continue to be required to maximise Australian participation in overseas infrastructure projects. Efic will continue to be required to ensure Australian companies, especially SMEs, have every opportunity to expand into overseas markets.
This bill does not change Efic's existing Australian content requirements, or Efic's focus on SMEs.
The bill enhances Efic's existing function to facilitate and encourage exports. It enables Efic to take account of not only the immediate export opportunities from the involvement of Australian companies, including SMEs, in overseas infrastructure projects, but future streams of export opportunities and future jobs for Australians arising from the opening of new and emerging markets for Australian business. Creating new export oriented jobs is important for Australia's economy. One in five Australian jobs is trade-related, and, in the last five years, trade contributed around a quarter of Australia's economic growth.
The Liberal-National Government's trade agenda, which has included delivering comprehensive free trade agreements with Australia's three largest export markets China, Japan and Korea, has supported Australia's strong economic growth which is faster than any of the G7 nations.
In 2018, the Liberal-National Government delivered the TPP-11, one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded, covering 11 countries with a combined GDP of more than $13.8 trillion and close to 500 million consumers. The TPP-11 benefits Australian farmers, manufacturers, service providers and small businesses.
The Liberal-National Government is backing small business via free trade agreements, via tax relief for around 3.3 million businesses who employ around 7 million Australians, and via this bill.
An enhanced role for Efic in infrastructure will boost its ability to support Australian businesses, including SMEs, which have the specialised skills and knowledge base that underpin major infrastructure projects, increasing Australian participation. For example, Efic's support for the PNG LNG project was crucial to encouraging private sector finance and led to over $1 billion in contracts being awarded to Australian businesses, including SMEs, as well as providing local jobs and valuable export earnings for PNG.
The bill will allow Efic to conduct operations under the name Export Finance Australia.
A new simpler name that references Australia will provide greater recognition for Efic and the Australian Government, both with Australian SMEs and other exporters, and in important overseas markets.
The bill maintains Efic ' s risk controls and commercially appropriate risk appetite.
Efic will continue to conduct rigorous due diligence for infrastructure projects in the same manner as other transactions under the Efic Act. This includes robust environmental and social risk assessments.
Efic has a strong record of prudent lending and sound commercial judgement evidenced by a historical write-off rate on its commercial account of less than one per cent. Efic's historical write-off rate is lower than the average for commercial banks across the economic cycle. In each of the last 20 years it has delivered a profit on its commercial account. In 2017-18 alone Efic supported 160 Australian businesses with $194 million of facilities, enabling $1.39 billion of export contracts which contributed $1.15 billion of Australia's GDP and supported 7,600 jobs in Australia.
The bill maintains existing legislative safeguard requiring a net increase in Australian jobs within a business applying for Efic financing for overseas direct investment. It will not provide advantages to overseas competitors, or deprive Australian companies who produce in Australia of financial assistance.
The bill will enhance Australia ' s role and attractiveness as a partner in regional infrastructure development.
It will boost sustainable economic growth and support stronger commercial links between Australian businesses and our region.
Together with the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, the bill will help address the infrastructure needs of the Pacific region.
I commend the bill to the Chamber.
Perhaps I will make a short contribution on this matter. Labor will support the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, which will increase the scope for Efic to fund infrastructure projects in the Pacific island nations. We are aware that some aid organisations and activist groups have raised concerns about the kinds of projects that might be supported. But we believe that the best way of ensuring that the appropriate projects and safeguards are put in place is to heed the recommendations of Labor senators in their additional comments to the report of the Senate inquiry into this bill.
My Labor colleagues recommended that, some 18 months after the bill's assent, there be a statutory review of the changes that it implements. We are pleased that the government has now agreed that a statutory review should take place within 18 to 24 months of the bill's assent. The minister has given a written undertaking to that effect to the shadow minister for trade and to the shadow foreign minister. As Senator Wong indicated in a speech recently, a Labor government would work with the aid and development sector to devise a model that is fit for purpose. While that work took place, we would continue to use the mechanisms put in place under this government. Beyond funding, Labor's support for the new infrastructure would also offer capacity building, job opportunities and training, support for governance and project management, and technical assistance to help achieve appropriate design and financial arrangements, including for projects that would assist with climate resilience.
As Australia, like the Pacific, is in a natural-disaster-prone region, we have the ability to support climate-resilient infrastructure and systems. While much of the infrastructure finance will be focused on the Pacific, under a Shorten Labor government there will be opportunities to finance and assist with infrastructure in South-East Asia too. I remind senators that it is a serious mistake to think that the Pacific nations are a series of far-flung, tiny states with no strategic importance. The Pacific is far too important a region for Australia to simply reject this bill, as the Greens senators have urged in their response to the Senate inquiry.
In a speech to the Lowy Institute in October last year, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, recognised the special role that Australia must play in the Pacific. He called for the creation of a government backed infrastructure investment bank. The purpose of the bank would be to provide concessional loans for vital nation-building projects. By providing the necessary finance, Australia can enhance both the prosperity and the security of the region.
Our Pacific neighbours are looking for partners to help them. It is in our national interest to become their partner of choice. There are some people in this chamber who don't accept humanitarian justifications for any sort of aid or assistance. They don't accept that Australia's status as a wealthy developed nation gives us obligations to help nations, particularly those among our neighbours who are less developed. But even those people who don't accept that it's a matter of justice to help our neighbours should understand that it is in our national interest to do so. If we don't become a partner for development, other nations will do so. Under some other influences, Pacific nations might not remain as well disposed to Australia as they have hitherto been. As Mr Shorten pointed out, it's Labor's resolve that our neighbours should look to Australia first and have good cause to do so.
In November the Prime Minister made a statement similar in intent to that of Mr Shorten. He announced the $2 billion Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific and an extra $1 billion for Efic to finance infrastructure investments in the Pacific region. That has led to the present bill, which gives Efic an extra $1 billion in callable capital on its commercial account to fund infrastructure investments in the Pacific. The funding can be provided to individuals or to companies at a commercial rate. At present Efic can fund projects from its commercial account only if it helps to maximise Australian export opportunities, with defined Australian content and Australian job creation thresholds.
This bill eases those restrictions by introducing an Australian benefits test for Efic's loans. Under these tests an infrastructure project funded by Efic must have a benefit for Australia or a person conducting business or other activities in Australia. To cite an example used by the minister, the bill will allow Efic to fund an internet broadband project in the Pacific if it lowers the cost of doing business in the region for Australians. It would also enable projects to use local content and labour benefitting both parties to the loan. A minor but still significant change in this bill is a new name for Efic. It will be able to conduct its operations by trading as the Export Finance Corporation of Australia. It is a simpler name that may provide more-widespread recognition for Efic and for Australia as a development partner. Labor will work to make that happen.
I rise today to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. Let me say right from the outset that the Australian Greens oppose this bill. We think it is the wrong way to go about supporting our Pacific neighbours, and we're extremely concerned that under this amendment Australian taxpayers' money may indeed be going to worsen climate change with the expansion of fossil fuels in our region. And it's not good enough for the government to spend taxpayers' money on their own domestic coal pet projects. They now want to spend taxpayers' money on these projects in our region as well.
We are extremely concerned that this is not the right way to support our Pacific neighbours and play our role in the region. We hold deep concerns about the role of Efic in using taxpayers' dollars to fund fossil fuels in the era of climate breakdown and climate change. This is the moment when we need to start grappling with the real impacts of climate change and the destruction of our climate from the burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC report tells us that we have only a decade if we are to arrest the dangerous elements of global warming, and we are not going to be able to do that while we have political leaders talking about climate action and, on the other hand, taxpayers' money rolling out the door to fund more fossil fuel projects.
The passage of this bill has been rushed. We've experienced that already this afternoon. It was read a first time and then—bang—went straight to the second reading. Of course, this is all being done on the cusp of the federal election. We don't know when the Prime Minister is going to call the election. It could be Thursday. It could be Friday. It could be Saturday. It could be Sunday. It could be sometime next week. What we do know is that this government is obsessed with spending taxpayers' money, funding coal, gas and oil. We know that. That's all it seems to be able to come up with every time there is a debate around this matter: 'Just spend more taxpayers' money on it.'
It is absolutely shocking to me that in order to facilitate this bill being rushed through the parliament we have the Australian Labor Party lining up to tick and flick this bill through. It's not the way we should be engaging with our regional neighbours and it is not what we should be doing if we are serious about climate change. The Labor Party, of course, announced their climate policy only yesterday—only yesterday! Now, today, they're lining up to tick off on more taxpayers' funds and open the door to prop up coal and gas projects in the Asia-Pacific. Not so serious about climate change now, are we, less than 24 hours later.
This bill hasn't been allowed to have proper consultation. We know that the Prime Minister first announced the policy in November 2018, and it passed through the House of Representatives in February this year before coming to the Senate today. The speed at which this bill is being propelled leaves little time to consider some of the real concerns over its appropriateness.
As Stephen Howes points out in his submission on behalf of the Development Policy Centre at the Australian National University:
2. There is a risk that that the Efic reforms will undermine governance in the Pacific by encouraging a supply-side, project-proponent-led, non-competitive approach to infrastructure. This is widely perceived to be a problem with Chinese export credit to the Pacific.
3. Efic projects, even if commercially viable, may be against the national interest of the recipient country in a poor policy environment. But Efic lacks both the capacity to make policy assessments and the mandate to promote policy dialogue and reform.
4. Efic will be mandated to pursue infrastructure projects that are in Australia's interests, and to maximise Australian participation. In other words, it is required to put Australia first—
That means, ultimately, that our Pacific neighbours will lose out—
which is bad for the Pacific, and inconsistent with our official position of backing openness and competition.
The risks should be thoroughly explored before this bill passes the Senate. They should have been thoroughly explored properly before this bill was even brought to the floor.
I want to go to a couple of specific concerns that we have. The Australian Greens believe that Australia should be stepping up its engagement with the Pacific and doing far more to support its Pacific neighbours. The best way of doing this is by boosting our aid budget from its lowest ever levels as a proportion of gross national income to put us on a trajectory of reaching 0.7 per cent of GNI by 2030. The Pacific region would reap the benefits of a decent Australian aid budget alongside an increase in Australia's contribution to climate finance and Australian government policies to wean Australia off dangerous fossil fuels.
Today is budget day. We've got a lock-up that's about to start. Do you think that this government is going to put any more money into the aid budget? I think not. Every year, year after year after year, this government—the coalition government, the Liberal Party—cuts our foreign aid budget. It thinks that's its own piggy bank. Rather than investing and doing what needs to be done to support our Pacific neighbours, the government is more interested in supporting the fossil fuel industry than doing anything that supports those neighbours in our region through what would be a more legitimate and more appropriate use of support—through our foreign aid budget. I won't hold my breath that there'll be any increase in our foreign aid budget this election. No, this government will be more interested in giving tax cuts to the rich. That's what will be in the budget tonight: more tax cuts for wealthy people and less aid money for our Pacific neighbours. But, if it comes to bankrolling coal, oil and gas projects, whoa, there'll be plenty of money to go around. That is what is fundamentally wrong with this bill before us today.
The Greens fully support the submissions made by a number of development sector stakeholders who overwhelmingly have expressed serious concerns regarding the substance of the bill as well as a lack of consultation and the scrutiny surrounding it. As Oxfam notes in its submission:
In line with the Boe Declaration, and with best practice globally in providing development loans as well as Australia's obligations under both the Paris Declaration and global human rights standards, any loan facility increasing Australian funding for infrastructure to developing countries must:
We know what's at the heart of this: it's the coal industry, it's the oil industry and it's the gas industry. Of course these standards should also operate with a high level of transparency and accountability. Again, what is this bill doing but just formalising more secrecy around the spending of Australia's taxpayers' money.
Other standards, of course, should apply best practice. We should have best practice standards, due diligence and safeguards, including in relation to gender, human rights, climate change, and community consultation and consent. The Oxfam submission continues, saying that standards must:
And, lastly, the submission continues, saying that any type of loan facility like this must:
That's not what this bill is being rushed through the parliament for. There's nothing in here about what's going to help our Pacific neighbours when it comes to agriculture or water infrastructure or dealing with the issues of climate change—no. This is Australian taxpayer money being rolled out the door to prop up the fossil fuel industry. The Oxfam submission continues:
At present, EFIC does not have the mandate, operational framework or expertise that would enable it to accommodate these core elements. The draft legislation does not include provisions that would change EFIC's governance, structures or processes to ensure that any of these core elements are taken into account in the future.
There is no surprise as to why this bill is being rushed through this place today. It is the Liberal Party and the coalition delivering for their fossil fuel mates. And, sadly, we now have the Labor Party lining up to do it with them less than 24 hours after the Labor Party announced their climate policy—how pathetic.
Furthermore, the Australian Council for International Development notes in its submission to the rushed Senate inquiry into this piece of legislation that:
There is insufficient evidence that Efic's standards of governance; capability; risk management; environmental and social safeguarding; and transparency and accountability can effectively deliver on its proposed expanded mandate constituted in this Bill and will be commensurate and aligned with the high development standards and principles employed in Australia's development cooperation program by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Basically what the experts are saying is that Efic has no idea how they're going to do this and no idea how they're going to consult with the local communities properly. Indeed, they might be doing more harm—probably will be doing more harm—than good. That's before you even take into consideration the impact on climate change and global warming because of the high chance that this money is going to be spent on the fossil fuel industry.
Efic has a mandate to put Australia first—not the Pacific. The Australian Greens are deeply concerned that this bill will allow Efic to compromise the needs of our Pacific neighbours. It will mean that the needs of our Pacific neighbours will not even really be considered—they'll come off second best. I don't want to hear, after I sit down and we hear from the minister, the minister stand up and say how great this is and that it makes Australia so wonderful that we're doing all this for our Pacific neighbours. If you actually cared two hoots about how we engage in our region you would have an increase in the aid budget in tonight's budget papers, but it won't be there because this government doesn't actually care about how we engage with the people of the Pacific. They just care about what's going on with the corporations, with the mining industry and with the fossil fuel lobby.
We need Efic to strengthen its own accountability practices before it contemplates expanding its powers. It is notoriously secret, it has a lack of transparency and it just doesn't have the expertise to understand the needs on the ground in these local communities. It must get its own house in order. Efic has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to conduct due diligence, evidenced by human rights and environmental violations in Efic-sponsored projects overseas. Our Pacific neighbours should not be paying the price because this government wants to sign another cheque for their fossil fuel mates.
One of the most damning examples of Efic's poor decision-making is its decision to support the ExxonMobil-led PNG LNG project in 2009. It was the largest single loan Efic has given. Much of this transaction was done on its own national interest account and was thus undertaken with the cooperation of DFAT. Nevertheless, it could not have happened without passing Efic's due diligence standards, which clearly have been found to be wanting. In 2009 and again in 2012, Jubilee Australia found two major shortcomings of the project. Firstly, from a macroeconomic point of view, the expected financial impacts on the PNG economy were likely to be mixed and poor governance in PNG would likely undermine any predicted widespread benefits for the ordinary people of PNG. Secondly, Jubilee warned that the unrealistic promises combined with inadequate landowner mapping and political pressures on the landowners to sign onto the project agreement would eventually lead to landowner discontent. So we're causing more problems than we're solving.
Jubilee Australia went further and said that this discontent caused low-level conflict in PNG. It was suggested that the PNG government might send in the military, which could lead to the escalation of bloody civil conflict in the area. Despite all of these warnings, this is precisely what then happened. Efic was grossly incompetent in addressing the social, economic and political risks. Now we have a bill before us in which they want to expand their ability to participate in this nonsense, dressed up as some type of help to our Pacific neighbours. Well, it's bollocks. This is about supporting the fossil fuel industry—nothing more and nothing less.
This example further highlights our deep concerns about the possibility that this funding will finance fossil fuels. This government has repeatedly shown they will attempt to use every cog in the machinery of government to spend taxpayers' money on coal, oil and gas. As the Australia Institute pointed out in their submission, the government has made it explicit that Efic could fund projects to promote Australian fossil fuel exports. The Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Mr Coulton, said:
In the energy sector, Efic's new power would enable it to finance the construction of LNG receivable terminals, leading to increased energy exports or engineering services.
Oh. So that's what this is all about, then? Thanks, Minister. The Australia Institute in its submission says, 'While the minister's quote refers only to gas, this could equally apply to coal infrastructure.' And we know just how obsessed this government is with coal and spending taxpayers' money on coal. Just imagine the high-fives and the yippees that would be going on in the National Party room right now if this bill got through. We could have Mr Barnaby Joyce ringing up Gina Rinehart and saying, 'Look, more money for coal.' That's what this government is going to the election on. They have no plan to reduce carbon emissions and no plan to help our Pacific neighbours, but they want to rush this bill through today so that they can spend more of the money of hardworking Australians to prop up the fossil fuel industry. That's what's going on here and it's a disgrace that the Labor Party is standing by and letting them do it.
The Australian Greens attempted to move an amendment to this bill in the House on 20 February. This amendment would have prevented Efic from facilitating and funding the mining and export of thermal coal. You'd think at a time of climate action—with the desperate need for reducing carbon emissions and the phasing out of fossil fuels, like the IPCC has said—that this amendment would have passed without any problem—but, no. The Labor Party did not support this amendment. The Liberal Party, the coalition, did not support this amendment. And so now we have a bill before us today that is able to spend Australians' money on facilitating the export of climate change and fossil fuels overseas.
The Labor Party insist that they do not support taxpayer funding for the Adani coalmine, despite, of course, what some of their Queensland colleagues say. Well, here is an opportunity to prove it. I will be putting up these amendments again in this place to ensure that Australians' money cannot be spent on further expanding the coal industry. You're either with us or you're not. You can't stand up on Monday and say that you care about reducing carbon emissions and then come into this place less than 24 hours later and vote for a bill whereby taxpayers' money will be spent on making climate change worse in order to prop up and fund the coal industry. You can't do both.
I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. In an era where the Indo-Pacific is the centre of world power politics, it is more important than ever for Australia to step up its engagement in the region. Australia prides itself on being a regional player, working closely with our neighbours in aid, trade, security and investment. For this reason, any efforts by Australia to increase investment in our Indo-Pacific partners for the betterment of our region is welcome. I therefore applaud what this bill hopes to achieve.
Targeted and comprehensive investment in our region will only improve Australia's relationship with our neighbours. This is certainly in Australia's best interests. However, any efforts made to invest in our region must also be compliant with two simple principles. First, any investment must be not only in Australia's interests but also in the interests of the recipient country. It is antithetical for us to invest in our neighbours if such investments actually end up hurting our neighbours. Second, we must comply with our international obligations. Australia is a strong and steadfast proponent of rules based international order when on the world stage. We hurt our legitimacy and integrity if we advocate for one thing and then do another.
Unfortunately, the bill in its current form falls short of these two principles. For this reason, I propose two amendments which aim to rectify these shortcomings. First, the bill as it currently stands only requires that investments are in Australia's interests. This is insufficient. We must ensure our investments in the region are not only in our interests but in the long-term interests of our neighbours. We cannot expect this bill to help Australia build stronger regional relationships if we don't ensure that our investments actually assist our neighbours. For this reason, my proposed amendment would require a suitable legal, administrative and policy framework for any investment. It would also remove the requirement for maximum Australian benefits to be sought from any investment. This requirement hurts Australia's reputation in the region. Whilst the likelihood of Australian benefits should also be a consideration, maximising the benefit to Australia should not be the overarching consideration for investments.
Second, it is concerning that the Australian Senate wishes to pass a bill which allows us to undermine our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement when we invest in our overseas partners. Under article 2 of the Paris Agreement, Australia committed to:
Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.
Any investments Efic makes under these new arrangements should be consistent with this commitment. The truth is that Australia is a wealthy nation that has the capacity to help its neighbours develop clean, suitable energy and infrastructure. To pass this bill without a requirement that we comply with our commitments under the Paris Agreement would undermine our commitment to the rules based international order. It would also be a missed opportunity to help our neighbours develop sustainable infrastructure. For this reason, my second amendment would require investments to be consistent with achieving the aims, objectives and obligations of the climate change conventions passed in Paris. It is a shame that such issues were not more deeply considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry. The truth is that the committee rushed the process, notably not even holding public hearings. For a reform as significant as this bill, this is simply unacceptable.
Having worked in Vietnam for the World Bank and in other countries in our region and in other private sectors, I am completely committed to targeted, comprehensive and meaningful investment by Australia in the Asia-Pacific's development. But any such investment must always comply with our international obligations and must seek to not only benefit Australia but also benefit the recipient of any such investment. For this reason, I am pleased that Australia seeks to invest more widely in the region. However, I am disappointed that a structure we have chosen to use to facilitate such investment, as laid out in this bill, has clear shortcomings, which has the potential to lead to worse outcomes for our region and Australia's reputation at large.
I stand today to express the Greens' serious concerns about the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019 and to say categorically that the Greens will be voting against this bill. I urge all other senators to also vote against this bill today. This bill will greatly expand the power of the Australian export credit agency and increase its access to callable capital from approximately $200 million to $1.2 billion. I want to state that this is public money. This is taxpayer money.
The government hasn't consulted the public, who own these funds, on this bill and is rushing this through parliament without any time for adequate consultation—coincidently, probably a couple of days before an election is called. I was concerned to see, as were many stakeholders around this country, that the recent report released by the Senate Economics Committee, of which I am part, ignored many of the important issues raised by civil society groups across this country. Efic has, unfortunately, had a long history of funding fossil fuel projects that have been found to be detrimental to women's rights, communities and low-income countries as a whole. Senator Hanson-Young has already given an example of how previous investments have disregarded the environmental impact in those countries. This is not a body that we should be trusting with an extra billion dollars of public funds.
One example alluded to already was Efic's investment in the PNG LNG project which Efic funded in 2014. Research by Jubilee Australia showed a range of negative impacts from this project for local communities, including an increase in violence and harm to the PNG economy overall. Of course, this doesn't include the climate impact of opening up new fossil fuel projects around the world, which, at this point in history, is nothing short of sheer madness. So, given Efic's history of lending to projects associated with significant threats to human rights and the environment in our region, the Greens do not feel that the work has been done and that the community has enough faith in this bill. Senator Hanson-Young pointed out that this will just be a trojan horse for exporting more climate change, coal and fossil fuels to overseas countries to the benefit of a few large companies.
I want to talk a little bit about another form of export that Efic has been involved in which concerns me almost as much as the pork-barrelling we might see around new fossil fuel projects that can't stand on their own two feet—that is, the export of weapons and arms we see facilitated through Efic. You may be aware that $3.8 billion was set aside by this government two years ago for what they called the Defence Export Facility, administered by Efic, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. I will read to you from Efic's website:
A $3.8 billion Defence Export Facility administered by Efic, Australia's export credit agency—
was set up—
This will help Australian companies get the finance they need to underpin the sales of their equipment overseas. It will provide confidence to Australian Defence industry to identify and pursue new export opportunities knowing Efic's support is available when there is a market gap for defence finance.
Why is there a market gap for defence finance? Why is there a clear market failure in the provision and export of defence industry technology, hardware and munitions to overseas countries? I've asked this question of Minister Payne several times during estimates. I've put questions on notice. There has been almost no detail around why this $3.8 billion was necessary.
Reverend Costello, the day this was announced, came out and said that this was blood money. Why are we setting up a taxpayer funded export facility to subsidise weapons manufacturers to sell weapons to countries overseas? 'Who are they selling them to?' you may ask. The government has set up a catalogue. If you're in the market for a new high-powered machine gun, perhaps, or a turret that might carry a machine gun on an armoured personnel carrier, or some drone technology, go onto the catalogue and have a look; it's all there.
The only export sale we've seen announced from this so far was to Saudi Arabia, a country that was involved in the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, who was cut up with a bone saw in a foreign embassy, which we've talked about in this chamber recently. This government said that all options would be on the table in relation to Saudi Arabia, yet a couple of months later we find that the option on the table is to sell it weapons. This country is a known human rights abuser. It has been involved in the civil war in Yemen, which the United Nations has said is the biggest humanitarian catastrophe this century, yet we are selling, through Efic, a government sponsored agency, more weapons and arms to serial human rights abusers overseas. That's the level of trust we are putting in this organisation today, to which we are planning to give an extra billion dollars.
In a time of climate change, a time of climate emergency, a time of climate crisis, why would we be giving money to an organisation that has a track record of funding fossil fuel developments and has openly talked about facilitating the infrastructure for Adani, one of the world's biggest coalmines, where, once again, Australia exporting is climate change to the world? Twenty-four hours after Mr Malcolm Turnbull called a double dissolution, I remember going down to Cape Grim in the north-west of Tasmania—where you're from, Mr Acting Deputy President Duniam—and standing on the beach with a placard that said '400 parts per million' because the Cape Grim weather station, one of two monitoring stations in the world, had just measured 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere. Our global challenge, if we're going to act on runaway climate change, is to get emissions below 350 parts per million. It's accepted that 450 parts per million is the white flag for give-it-up, runaway climate change.
That was three years ago. When I stood on that beach with that sign and nearly got blown away—because, as you know, Cape Grim has very severe weather—even though it was an ominous sign that the world had passed 400 parts per million, I would never have imagined that in the last three years in Australia we would have seen back-to-back bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, something that our climate scientists predicted wouldn't have been possible until 2050 on our existing emissions trajectories. I would never have predicted that we would have seen the loss of Tasmania's giant kelp forests, an ancient ecosystem that stretched from north-eastern Tasmania all the way to south-west Tasmania. An ecosystem central to not just the water biodiversity of Tasmanian waters but our fisheries has gone in the last three years. I would never have predicted that we would have seen three fires in the last five summers in World Heritage areas that have never seen fire for thousands of years. I wouldn't have predicted that every weather record in this country would have been broken in the last three years since we passed 400 parts per million.
What is it now? What is Cape Grim reading now? I'm finding it very hard to find out. The last reading I could find was 412 parts per million. The Hawaiian station is reading 415. Our trajectory over the last three years means that within 10 years we will pass 450 parts per million—runaway climate change. And what do we get? What do we get from this government? We get a bill, coming before the parliament in the dying days of the 45th Parliament, to give $1 billion of public money to Efic, an organisation that has funded fossil fuel projects overseas, that has talked about funding foreign-owned fossil fuel projects like the Adani mine in Australia and that has helped facilitate a clearly political strategy to build a defence industry, to be a global top-10 arms exporter, using public money. Why would we trust and give more public money to this agency, especially under the tutelage and guidance of this LNP government, a government full of climate deniers that have taken no action on climate change? In fact, they're quite the opposite. Since they came to government in 2013 they have ripped up the world's leading gold-standard package on climate. They've cynically reduced it to nothing for their own big backers in the fossil fuel industry. No way will we support this bill to give this government and Efic another billion dollars of taxpayers' money.
Let's talk about facilitating an offshore oilfield and LNG terminal in Papua New Guinea. We know an oil company wrote to the committee about it and said: 'Let's support this. Let's get behind this. This is perfect for this kind of project.' This is a time in history for us to be saying no more—no more greenfields exploration in offshore oil and gas; no more seismic testing offshore. It's a time in history to be transitioning to renewable energy. It's time to listen to the NRMA, who came out yesterday and said: 'No more sales. The government should ban the sale of diesel and petrol cars by 2025.' That's only six years away. The peak motoring body has come out and suggested that this is the kind of thing we need to do to cut our emissions to meet the targets we need to meet, to reduce that 412 parts per million back to 350, where we need it to be to secure the future for our grandchildren.
Why is it that we are vacillating? Why is it that there's paralysis in this place to take action on climate change? The answer is simple. Big political parties, big money, are in bed together. Big donations mean zero action. That's the root cause of the problem. We need to fix a rigged political system where the Liberal Party and the Labor Party take donations from big oil and gas and we need to make sure we put in place the policies the Australian people want to transition to 100 per cent renewables, to get zero net emissions by 2030. If we don't, we haven't got time. In 10 years, we will pass 450 parts per million, and there is no turning back. There is no turning back from runaway climate change—
Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, the time for the debate has expired.
by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Cormann, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and the Public Service, will be absent from question time today due to budget arrangements. In Senator Cormann's absence, I will represent the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Public Service, and the Special Minister of State.
by leave—I inform the chamber that, following the resignation of Senator Jacinta Collins from the Senate, Senator O'Neill has been appointed Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate. I congratulate her on this appointment and I seek leave to table the revised shadow ministry list and have the list incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
SHADOW MINISTRY
Each box represents a portfolio except for (1) which is in the Education portfolio and (2) which is in the Health portfolio. Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type .
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Reynolds. When asked in an interview on Sky News whether she agreed that flexibility in wages and keeping wages at a relatively modest level is a deliberate feature of Australia's economic architecture to help drive employment growth, the minister said:
No, I don't believe—absolutely not … to even suggest that, I think, shows a fundamental lack of understanding about economics.
Does the minister stand by her statement?
Thank you very much for my first question—and you certainly haven't let us down by the nature of the question! I absolutely stand by what I said and I stand by this government's record on creating jobs. There are no more jobs in this country being created today than there are in defence industry. When you have a look at the contrast, there is nothing starker than your record of jobs in defence industry.
Order! Senator Farrell, on a point of order.
The question is a very, very simple one. We quoted one of the minister's statements and asked a very simple question: does she stand by her statement?
The minister is entitled to address any part of the question. She is being directly relevant to it.
I absolutely stand by what I said. I stand by what the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has said on this issue. On this side of the chamber, we know the only way to lift wages is through a stronger economy that is built on more jobs and lower taxes, which is exactly what we on this side of the chamber have been working on for the last six years. You will see the benefit of that to the nation in the delivery of the budget tonight. But it wasn't just my statement and what Minister Cormann said; it has also been many other people in the Australian community. For example, in The Australian, Ewin Hannan reported AiG as saying:
There is no point in having an independent tribunal to determine wages and working conditions if parliament is going to dictate what decisions the tribunal must make or is going to impose unbalanced criteria to ensure that the tribunal's decisions favour one party over another …
AiG also said Labor's policy would have 'perverse impacts on the Australian labour market and it overlooks the significant increases to the national minimum wage in recent years'. So I absolutely stand by what I said. Of course I stand by it.
Again, we know the only way to increase wages is by increasing the economy and increasing jobs—1.25 million jobs have already been created on this side of the chamber, and that is in stark contrast to the record of those opposite, and nowhere more so than in my portfolio— (Time expired)
Given the minister was responding to a statement made by the minister for finance and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, has the minister informed Senator Cormann that he has 'a fundamental lack of understanding about economics'?
I thank the senator for the supplementary question. I've got to say, of all of the questions I could have been asked on this portfolio as now a very proud Minister for Defence Industry, it is a shame, but I'm not surprised, that you did not ask my first question on the jobs and the wages of those in the defence industry. Again, I stand by what I said—
Senator Reynolds, please resume your seat. Senator Wong on a point of order?
I think the minister finally got to the question, which was about her comments about the living wage in response to Senator Cormann's comments. As I understand, she was addressing the question as I got to my feet.
She was 21 seconds in. Senator Macdonald on the point of order?
Senator Wong had the advantage of hearing Senator Reynolds. I'm finding it very difficult because the bully boys from the union, like Senator Cameron, are constantly shouting at a female minister and I cannot hear her.
Senator Wong on the point of order?
On the point of order, this senator is one of the last people in this place, ever, who should be talking about bullying. I refer to Senator Macdonald, the second—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Are you finished yelling? Because I'm on my feet and I have a point of order to make. Thank you. This minister is being asked questions about, frankly, a ridiculous statement she made about a government minister and we are entitled to ask that question of this minister. That is why she has been asked.
Order! Senator Wong, that's not a point of order. Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Macdonald, on the point of order, there is no point of order, as Senator Wong admitted at the end of her first point of order. Senator Reynolds was turning to the question. On the issue of noise, it's disappointing that after this period of time people get into it this quickly. It is very difficult to hear Senator Reynolds, although she is blessed with a very strong voice. I would ask that senators allow both the questioner and the person answering the question to be heard in relative silence. Senator Reynolds to continue.
Thank you very much, Mr President. As I was saying, those on the other side really don't understand what lifts wages, and that is jobs. This government has, for the last six years, been working towards and has created over 1.25 million jobs. The only way to lift wages is a stronger economy built on more jobs and lower taxes, which is what those on this side have done diligently for six years. The benefits of that will be very clear tonight not only on over 1 million jobs but also on the wages of those Australians employed.
Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
Thank you, Mr President. Moments after ridiculing Senator Cormann's statement, as demonstrating 'a fundamental lack of understanding about economics', Minister Reynolds declared that Senator Cormann was 'absolutely right'. What new facts came to light in those moments to cause such a dramatic turnaround?
Senator O'Neill, all I can say is I fully agree with Senator Cormann. All of us on this side of the chamber do. We know the only way to increase wages is through a bigger economy, a stronger economy and more jobs. We've demonstrated that through 1.25 million jobs and, again, we're now on track and we're bringing the policies in in this budget to continue another 1 million jobs. We, on this side of the chamber, clearly get it. You need a low-tax government—
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Order! Senator Cameron on a point of order?
My point of order goes to relevance. We simply want to know what caused the minister to have such a dramatic change of mind.
Senator Cameron, the minister is entitled to address a question of those terms in this manner. She's being directly relevant. Senator Reynolds.
I absolutely stand by what I said about what causes wage increase. I absolutely stand by that. You've asked me the same question three times and the answer is the same every single time. But let's have a look at the opposition. If you want to talk about wage increases, I'd be very happy to compare and contrast 1.25 million jobs we have created on this side. What has the Leader of the Opposition done to jobs?
Order! Senator O'Neill on a point of order?
The question asked was, 'What new facts came to the senator's mind?' We haven't had an answer to that question. We haven't got anywhere near it.
I'm going to remind senators that, when questions have prefaces, a minister is entitled to be directly relevant to any part of the question. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question.
The first time you asked the question I said I absolutely reject the premise because I support the government.
Opposition senators interjecting—
There is. (Time expired)
My question is to the , Senator Cash. Minister, how are the Liberal-National government's policies of strong economic management and returning the budget to surplus benefitting our nation's 3.3 million small and family businesses and their 5.7 million employees?
I thank Senator Paterson for his question. As Senator Reynolds was actually stating herself, the Liberal-National government has overseen the creation of almost 1.3 million jobs since we were elected to office in 2013. That actually equates to 240,000 jobs per year on average compared to under the former Labor government where the economy only created on average around 155,000 jobs per year. So, on those statistics alone, the Liberal-National government's policies are job-creating.
The reason, though, that there are jobs being created is because the Liberal-National government has put in place the right economic framework. That, of course, includes lowering taxes, in particular for small and medium businesses; backing small and medium businesses; and ensuring that all Australians have the skills that they need. When you put in place the right economic framework, you create jobs—1.3 million almost. As such, we've been able to commit to the Australian people that our plan going forward is to create a further 1.25 million jobs if we're elected to government. A key part of our economic plan is to back Australia's small and medium businesses—around 3.3 million small and medium businesses. They employ around 5.7 million Australians. The way we backed them was by reducing their taxes to 25 per cent despite, of course, the opposition from the Labor Party. The Labor Party don't believe in lowering taxes. That is something that—on the Liberal-National side of politics—is in our DNA. We understand the more money a small and family business has in their back pocket— (Time expired)
Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?
Is the minister aware of any risks to the success of our nation's small-business sector?
When Mr Shorten announced Labor's so-called energy policy yesterday, I have to say that he sent a number of shivers up the spine of small business. In particular, he sent a shiver up the spine of the 3.3 million small and family businesses and the 5.7 million Australians they employ. Why? Because Labor have set a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. They have set a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They failed to tell anybody yesterday how they're going to implement it or how it will be paid, but what we do know is this: a 45 per cent emissions reduction target will destroy around 336,000 jobs. They will be destroyed; they will be wiped out. It will wipe around $9,000 from the wages of the average Australian and, of course, it will drive up electricity prices.
Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question.
Minister, how can Australians avoid these risks to our nation's 3.3 million small and family businesses?
The election will soon be called and it presents a stark choice for all Australians. They can vote for the job-creating, tax-reducing policies of the Liberal-National Party or, alternatively, they can vote to pay higher taxes, they can vote to pay more for their electricity, they can vote for lower wages and they can vote for job losses because that is what they will get under a Shorten Labor government. On this side of the chamber, we believe in putting in place the right economic framework to ensure that our businesses—in particular, our small and family businesses, the backbone of the Australian economy—are able to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians, because we know, when a small business does prosper and grow, the whole of Australia benefits.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. The Liberal member for Goldstein, Mr Tim Wilson, has called for One Nation to be preferenced 'dead last'. Does Mr Morrison agree?
I thank Senator Wong for her question. The Prime Minister has made very clear that the Liberal Party will be preferencing the Labor Party ahead of One Nation. The Prime Minister has been clear and absolute in his condemnation of Senator Hanson and the statements that she and her colleagues allegedly made under recording, and the government will be resolute in our position that we will put the parties of government before any parties of the extreme. And I note that those opposite, whilst joining us in that regard in relation to putting the parties of extreme positions from one perspective below the parties of government, do not share that position in relation to the other perspective.
Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
The retiring Liberal member for Higgins, Minister O'Dwyer, has declared, 'I can't see any reason why One Nation wouldn't be preferenced last.' Why won't Mr Morrison take his senior minister's advice?
I can see one reason that One Nation wouldn't be preferenced last, and he sits over there: it's Senator Anning.
Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.
Given that Senator Birmingham himself has publicly declared that it was his expectation that One Nation would be put last, why has Mr Morrison failed to meet Senator Birmingham's expectations?
As I answered in the preceding two questions, the Prime Minister has been clear that One Nation will be preferenced below the alternative party of government, the Labor Party. But the Prime Minister's equally been clear that we will see who else nominates when nominations close, because there are indeed individuals—and one of them occupies a seat in this chamber—whom we will put last, whom we will put below One Nation, and that is exactly as it should be.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senators! That was, quite frankly, despicable, where virtually everyone in the chamber was screaming to the point that I couldn't hear a word being said.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Well, if it was fewer than that, then they had very strong voices. If you're going to ask questions, listen to the answer, and there's an opportunity to have a debate afterwards.
My question is to the Leader of the Government, representing the Prime Minister. This morning the Bureau of Meteorology informed the country that the first quarter of the year was the hottest ever on record—an entire degree above the previous record and 2.2 degrees above the long-term average. Climate change is happening right now, and it is devastating. Last week the International Energy Agency reported that global emissions increased by two per cent, driven largely by the increased burning of coal. Minister, I have a simple question: do you acknowledge the link between the burning of coal and climate change?
The government absolutely acknowledges the science of climate change. The government has worked to ensure that Australia will meet our 2020 emissions reduction targets. We've done that through our investment in the Emissions Reduction Fund, we've done that through a range of other investments and we're showing clear leadership in terms of the Climate Solutions Package that the Prime Minister released recently, part of which includes our investment in relation to Snowy Hydro. Snowy Hydro will provide a huge pillar in terms of Australia's ability to transform our energy markets in particular and to meet our 2030 emissions reduction targets.
What is always overlooked by the Australian Greens in their commentary is that, as a nation, Australia met our first Kyoto targets, is on track to meet our second Kyoto targets and, indeed, has been able to do so without the type of carbon tax policies that the Greens advocate for or that the Labor Party adopt. These are policies that we've delivered without those things that drive up electricity prices for Australian households but, instead, seek the transformation in our emissions reduction at the lowest possible cost. And we saw the Labor Party release a policy yesterday that was scant on many details in terms of the impacts of the policy—the economic impacts of the policy—
Senator Di Natale on a point of order.
On relevance, Mr President. I gave a preamble and have given the minister the opportunity to address some of the issues raised in the preamble but my question was very specific—whether the minister acknowledged the link between the burning of coal and climate change. He said he accepts the science of climate change—
I will take that point of order. The minister is being directly relevant to part of the question. I cannot instruct him how to answer a question as long as he is being directly relevant. Senator Birmingham.
Thanks, Mr President. Indeed, the science of climate change acknowledges, of course, those emissions that contribute to climate change. They come from the burning of coal and a range of other activities; that is accurate, Senator Di Natale. Of course, there are efficiencies in some activities in burning coal relative to others. Australian coal produces fewer emissions relative to coal from many other parts of the world. That's why our nation's exports actually provide for lower emissions than may be the case if countries were to use their own coal or other coal sources with higher levels of emissions.
Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.
I appreciate you being very directly relevant to the question; it makes a good change. Australia's the world's biggest coal exporter, and burning coal is the biggest global contributor to our climate breakdown. Eighty per cent of the thermal coal we dig up is exported overseas, so it should be a statement of the bleeding obvious that if you don't have a plan to phase out coal, you've got no climate plan. Minister, what is your plan to phase out the single biggest contributor to climate change, coal?
Senator Di Natale wasn't very nimble in terms of hearing the concluding part of the answer I gave to the earlier question as to the role Australian coal plays in energy production elsewhere in the world. If it weren't Australian coal, it would quite likely be coal from other nations that involve higher levels of emissions output. Senator Di Natale, you have to recognise that so long as countries are burning coal, Australia's coal with lower levels of emissions is a better option for those countries. That's why it's important that our industry continues to play a clear role.
What matters in reducing emissions worldwide are the commitments countries make and whether or not they're met. Australia has a proud record of making commitments and of meeting those commitments. That's what we've done and that's what we'll continue to do. In terms of transformation of the energy market in Australia, I referenced Snowy Hydro before as one of our government's forward-leaning plans, which stands in contrast to the often-cited opinions of former Senator Bob Brown. (Time expired)
Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.
Given that both the government and the opposition's climate policies are largely silent on coal, which is the largest contributor to climate change—indeed, the Prime Minister took a lump of coal into the parliament and he cuddled it—what is your plan to pay for the economic destruction wrought from frequent droughts, floods, bushfires, heatwaves and, indeed, the loss of the Great Barrier Reef and the collapse of the Murray-Darling Basin? What is your plan to deal with those? Because you refuse to act on coal.
Our plan is to ensure that, just as we did for 2020, we will meet our 2030 targets. We'll meet the commitments we make internationally and we'll encourage other countries to meet their commitments as well. Australia acting alone won't make any difference to climate change. Australia acting as part of united action globally will be what makes a difference. That's why we've made our Paris commitments and that's why we'll deliver on those Paris commitments.
But the Greens sit there in their holier-than-thou state and, as I said before, many have reflected on Senator Bob Brown writing a piece for The Mercury headed, 'Coal-fired power the best option'. What was he railing against at the time? He was railing against hydro. Our government is proud to have been consistent in our support for using hydro in Tasmania for the generation of energy and for being consistent in our support now for the transformative role that pumped hydro will play in supporting the transformation of Australia's energy sources. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Reynolds. I congratulate her on her elevation to cabinet. It's great to have another strong Western Australian in cabinet. Minister, how is the government's economic plan to build a stronger economy and a secure future allowing for landmark investments in Australian defence capability in order to keep Australians safe?
I thank Senator Brockman for his question on defence industry. I acknowledge his commitment to defence industry in our home state of Western Australia—a true champion. There is no senator or minister prouder than I am today of this government's record on supporting defence. Over the last six years the Liberal-National government has worked to recover and rebuild defence following six years of Labor failure and utter neglect. On this side of the chamber we made a commitment to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP. We're sticking to it and we are on track to deliver that in the 2020-21 financial year. In 2016 the Liberal-National government released the 2016 Defence white paper and committed to invest over $200 billion into defence capability. Through that we are already supporting over 30,000 jobs right here in Australia. There are now over 3½ thousand SMEs working in the defence industry sector.
All this is possible because of our economic plan to build a stronger economy and a more secure future for all Australians. The Liberal-National government committed to the Naval Shipbuilding Plan to escape from Labor's 'valley of death' and to meet the capability requirements of the Royal Australian Navy. We are investing $90 billion into the Naval Shipbuilding Plan. We on this side of the chamber have commissioned 54 new Australian vessels to be built between Henderson in Western Australia and Osborne in South Australia. This plan is creating thousands of jobs throughout Australia. These are multigenerational jobs. The government is also investing $5 billion in Australia's marine patrol capabilities—new aircraft to keep our borders and our nation safe. There are a further 1,450 jobs right throughout— (Time expired)
Senator Brockman, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for her answer. Minister, how is the government securing Australia's future by creating a sovereign defence industry to deliver this capability?
Thank you very much, Senator Brockman. Our government is securing Australia's future by creating a sovereign defence industry to deliver on vital capability for the ADF. That will keep Australians safe and create new, multigenerational jobs for Australians. We are maximising the involvement of Australian defence industry SMEs to deliver this capability. As I've just said, over 3½ thousand SMEs are now providing support to the ADF through the supply chain. We are maximising their involvement. Just last week I visited Joe and Joel Nevin from Blacktree Technology's brand new facility in Belmont, Western Australia, and announced our government's defence policy for industry participation. Their business is an outstanding example of how a competitive, local SME in WA and right across this nation can thrive in defence industry. Blacktree Technology's innovation and communication technologies are— (Time expired)
Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question.
It's great to hear that our small and medium enterprises across Australia are benefiting. Minister, can you outline to the Senate any threats to the government's plan to continue strengthening our defence capability and securing our future?
I thank Senator Brockman for his question and I can certainly see, right across this chamber, the greatest threat we have to our defence capability in Australia. You only have to look at their past record. I know they don't want to talk about this, because what was their record? First of all, how many new ships or vessels did those opposite commission in six years of government? Absolutely zero. Not only that; when Labor are at the helm, they pose a real threat to our defence industry and capability. Guess how many defence projects those opposite cancelled when they were in government.
How many?
Those opposite cancelled 119 projects when in government. In addition, 43 projects were degraded and eight projects were cancelled altogether. And now Richard Marles is going to run the ruler over the submarine program, and we all know what that means: the second valley of death. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. The Leader of the Nationals, Mr McCormack, has refused to commit the Nationals to putting One Nation last, stating a decision would be made 'closer to election day, when all the candidates are known'. In response to the most extremist positions articulated by One Nation, former Nationals leader Tim Fischer has called for One Nation to pay a price, declaring, 'I'd put them last.' Why is Mr McCormack refusing to demonstrate leadership by committing to put One Nation and extremist parties last?
Thank you for the question. For your information, Senator Chisholm, the National Party is a federated party. We've been saying this continually. We are a federated party, and that is matter for our state divisions.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! On my left—Senator O'Neill and Senator Wong. Senator Wong, I can't hear Senator McKenzie's answer, so I'm going to have trouble ruling on Senator Chisholm's point of order.
A point of order on relevance: I reckon Tim Fischer would know they're a federated party, given he was the leader—
I don't know that that's a point of order, Senator Chisholm, and I can't rule on it, because I couldn't hear Senator McKenzie.
State divisions will be making decisions on preferences once all candidates are known in seats, and that is entirely appropriate and is what we do each and every time. But I tell you what: we do make our preference decisions based on what is best for regional Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister has been clearly outlining the threat to the two industries that underpin our local economies in regional industry—that actually underpin our national economy—with 70 per cent of our exports: agriculture and mining. I can tell you that those industries, which employ millions of Australians, most of them out in regional Australia, are under threat from the Labor Party and their coalition partner, the Greens. So I would be saying to Bill Shorten: 'If you really back the coalminers of Rockhampton, of Dawson, of Flynn—if you really do—let them know where you stand on preferencing the party that wants them all to lose their jobs.' You just heard the Leader of the Greens stand up in this place and argue for the end of the coal industry, of the mining industry. If I were in the CFMEU, I'd be calling Bill Shorten today. I'd be standing up and saying: 'Do you know what? My members deserve to have prosperous, sustainable jobs in the regions as part of a strong, well-regulated mining sector, which has built this economy and built our regional communities.'
Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.
In an opinion piece published this morning, former Nationals senator Ron Boswell continued to argue for the Nationals to put One Nation at the bottom of their ticket, warning that failing to do so would be 'strengthening its position and weakening ours'. Is former Senator Boswell wrong?
I merely outlined the process our party undertakes to decide preferences. We do it year in, year out, election in, election out, and I'm confident that, with respect to your previous question, Tim Fischer will put One Nation last. I'm confident that a whole lot of regional Australians will make their own preferencing decisions, but they will take their own values, their own aspirations and their own views of what our parliament should look like when they're making the decisions about what is best for them, their communities and our local industries. And Ron Boswell: very rarely wrong.
Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question.
Former Senator Boswell called on the Nationals:
Don't give it an inch. Give no quarter, win the ground and hold your nerve.
When will Mr McCormack finally show the strength of leadership respected and long-serving Nationals like Ron Boswell and Tim Fischer have demonstrated? Why won't Mr McCormack hold his nerve? Why is he so weak?
Again, we have the process. I've laid it out. You're trying to somehow conflate a preference deal with people in the National Party condoning racism, a behaviour we find reprehensible. MP and senator after MP and senator from the National Party have stood up against racism, and have stood up against intolerant, extremist behaviour and comments. But to actually then conflate that with preference decisions that are 'ho-hum, oh-so-boring, what we do every election'—we're not changing our process internally just because you can't actually come clean with who's on the bottom of your preference deals.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator O'Neill, I've called you to order numerous times.
After what the Labor Party did and said in the New South Wales state election, it is reprehensible that your leader was filmed saying what they said and did a deal with the shooters— (Time expired)
A number of senators have been called to order on numerous occasions. I would ask them to take a breath for a few minutes before they recommence breaking standing orders and interjecting.
Thank you, Mr President. Yes, they're a rowdy lot, aren't they? My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. How is the Liberal-National government's plan for a stronger economy and a more secure future allowing it to make record investments in the supply of housing for Indigenous communities in the bush?
Oh, what a joke! What an absolute joke!
Listen to the answer, Senator Cameron.
Order!
I thank Senator Williams for that very important question. Senator Williams in his 12 years in this place has fought very hard for the bush and the regions, and I would particularly like to acknowledge that record of service.
Thanks to the coalition bringing the budget back under control—we're in surplus for the first time in 12 years—we're able to reinvest in the vital services that Australians rely on. This has meant we were able invest $550 million in remote Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory, which, combined with matched funding from the Northern Territory government, means there will be record funding in remote Territory communities. Unfortunately for remote Territory communities, the Gunner Labor government refused and resisted signing the national partnership agreement we proposed. However, due to the immense pressure placed on the Territory government by the four land councils, common sense has prevailed and Michael Gunner has performed yet another backflip. The deal the Morrison government has delivered will ensure Aboriginal people and their representative bodies get a genuine say in the delivery of this housing, in setting employment targets and in making sure that the houses deliver what communities need and want.
But did senators opposite speak up once in support of the land councils? Not a word. Senator McCarthy, and in the other place the member for Lingiari and the member for Solomon, did not stand up for their Territory constituents; they merely listened to their weak Labor leadership. They all ignored the calls from the land councils to be involved in the delivery of housing. They never once refuted Michael Gunner's statement that Aboriginal land councils were not representative of Aboriginal people—divisive and hateful commentary from the Chief Minister. I'm pleased to report that, despite the inaction from the Territory's Labor representatives in this place, we have got a deal done and Aboriginal people are now at the table in the delivery of their own future.
Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that good answer, and I ask: how is the government leveraging this record investment in remote housing to create more local jobs and thriving small businesses?
The Commonwealth will ensure that all of the housing we are funding will employ and train Aboriginal workers and procure goods and services for Aboriginal businesses. Ensuring more Indigenous participation in delivering government projects has been a key priority for this government. While the Territory Labor government and those opposite don't appear to want to give Aboriginal people jobs and to build their own houses, this government disagrees. We're committed to ensuring that the hundreds of millions of dollars we're investing in remote housing and other projects deliver a long-term legacy of economic development and capacity building to truly sustainable rural and remote communities. That's why our economic and employment policies absolutely leave Labor for dead. Only a coalition government can be trusted to deliver better economic opportunities for our first Australians.
Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.
I ask the minister: how is the government changing the way that it does business by involving local Indigenous organisations in the delivery of housing works?
I thank the senator for the question. We are changing the way we do business by insisting that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses and workers get the opportunity to win government contracts. This is how we're doing it across the government already through our game-changing Indigenous Procurement Policy, and now we're starting to demand that projects we fund via the states also include strong Indigenous participation requirements.
Labor have been silent on this. They've made announcements on a whole range of procurement policies but said absolutely nothing about Indigenous involvement. The record speaks for itself. Under Labor, only $6 million worth of government contracts went to Indigenous businesses in the last year of government. Under the coalition, we're now up to $1.8 billion under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. If you're an Indigenous Australian and you want to have the dignity of work and being able to provide for your family and your community, what I say is: don't vote for Labor, because Labor would rather give you a welfare cheque than a well-paid job. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In a liberal democracy, free speech is a fundamental pillar which promotes open public discourse. However, it has been reported that the Prime Minister has said that my views have no place in Australia, let alone the Australian parliament.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Stop, Senator Anning. I need to be able to hear the question, so, on my left, cease interjecting. Senator Anning, please continue.
When I was recently the victim of an attack, the Prime Minister said that I and not my assailant should face the full force of the law. Does the government stand by the comments of the Prime Minister?
Emphatically, yes. With every right come responsibilities, and with the right to freedom of speech is the responsibility to use it in a way that brings harmony to our society, that brings peace to our society and that is reflective of the broader values of our society. Senator Anning, through you, Mr President, the way in which you have conducted yourself in the time since the massacre occurred in Christchurch—that terrible tragedy that this Senate and the other place came together earlier today to reflect upon, to mourn and to pay respect but also to strongly condemn the actions of a violent madman who undertook that—betrays the rights you have to freedom of speech and shows a lack of responsibility in the way you have conducted yourself. The lack of compassion you have shown demonstrates, frankly, a basic lack of basic humanity. Lives were lost, families were ruined, a community was devastated and, rather than rightly reflecting upon the terrible act that occurred and the loss of life that occurred, you instead acted in a way that was inflammatory, that was divisive and that, indeed, fuels, potentially, further acts of terror and violence. In doing so, Senator, you have shown a reckless disregard for your fellow Australians and many others around the world. In doing so, you have failed the test of character I would expect of anybody who is elected to this place. So, yes, Senator, we all have the right to freedom of speech.
However.
However, indeed, we should all exercise that right with the type of responsibility the Australian people expect of anybody elected to this place.
Senator Anning, a supplementary question.
If the government considers that someone striking me with an egg is acceptable but my opinions and defence of myself are not, at what point will such attacks be condemned?
I condemn, the government condemns and I am sure every one of the 75 other senators in this place condemns any act of violence against any individual. But, Senator Anning, to seek to compare the act that occurred, an act of protest in relation to an egg, with the comments you had made in relation to the loss of life that happened in Christchurch, is an appalling comparison to seek to make.
Of course everybody ought to uphold the law. But everybody in this place ought also to be able to show some leadership. Not only did you fail in terms of showing responsibility and thought around the freedom of speech that you carry as a member of Australian society, and, unfortunately, as a member of this Australian Senate; you also failed, indeed, to understand the relativities of the types of circumstances you were dealing with.
Senator Anning, a final supplementary question?
Based on your answer, is it not the case that it is the government's position that politically motivated violence is acceptable in circumstances where the cause is sufficiently worthy—that is to say, where the ends justify the means?
I refer you to my previous answer. Of course, this chamber will tomorrow deal with your actions through a bipartisan censure motion. I acknowledge and thank those opposite—and I'm sure those from elsewhere in the chamber—for their support that will come in relation to that censure motion. We also trust that the people of Queensland will deal with you as you deserve to be dealt with at the next election.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. I refer to former Prime Minister Turnbull, who said, 'The call to show the most emphatic disapproval of One Nation is absolutely justified, and they should be put last.' Is Mr Turnbull correct?
Again, I refer to my previous answers. Indeed, as I said, there will be many people who nominate at the next election, many of whom I will disagree with, the Liberal Party will disagree with, the National Party will disagree with, the Labor Party will disagree with or the Greens will disagree with. We'll all have to decide how we order our how-to-vote cards. We have been clear as a Liberal Party that we will put One Nation below the Labor Party and we'll assess all of the other parties of extreme positions according to their lack of merits thereafter.
Senator Ketter, a supplementary question?
In response to Mr Morrison's attempt to walk both sides of the street, former Prime Minister Turnbull said, 'Scott Morrison has obviously gone some way towards that today, but hopefully he will go further.' Will Mr Morrison heed Mr Turnbull's advice to go further and put One Nation last?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order during questions. Senator Birmingham.
I refer to all previous answers on this topic.
Senator Ketter, a final supplementary question?
When will Mr Morrison demonstrate the leadership the nation needs and reject the divisive and dangerous ideologies of One Nation by ensuring all coalition candidates put One Nation and candidates like them last?
I simply make the point, indeed as others have picked up, that you just asked us to put all One Nation candidates and all candidates like them last. We don't know who will nominate in each seat. I would hope that the Australian Labor Party, if Senator Anning is endorsing candidates, might put them last instead of One Nation. We've said very clearly that we will assess who nominates in which seat, their extreme positions and the lack of merit they deserve in terms of how they are ordered on our ballot paper. That's the responsible thing to do. We could not have been clearer that we will be preferencing the Labor Party ahead of One Nation in every possible circumstance.
Indeed, Mr Shorten has had to drag the union movement—I'm not sure entirely successfully—kicking and screaming to abandon what had been a 'Put the Liberals last' campaign that the unions were running. I'm not sure that they've abandoned that yet. Of course, we'll wait and see whether that's the case. But I'm sure you will— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan. My home state of Queensland is approximately 84 per cent agricultural land. Last year the Queensland state government introduced devastating new vegetation management laws for our farmers. Can the minister please update the Senate on any recent developments relating to vegetation management that may impact this crucial sector?
I thank Senator McGrath for his question and I recognise his longstanding advocacy for the great Queensland agricultural sector. He's right that last year the Queensland Labor government imposed draconian laws on our farmers, restricting their ability to develop their land and manage their land and to do what they do for all of us, which is to provide fresh and wonderful produce. What we have learnt this week is that the Labor Party and Bill Shorten are planning to bring these laws to Canberra—to bring these same draconian laws that are restricting Queensland farmers now to Canberra and apply them nationally. As the Prime Minister said this week, Bill Shorten wants to land-lock this country away from development, away from progress and away from growing more food. In fact, what he really wants to do is padlock the Queensland farming sector and the Australian farming sector to the land-lock laws of the Queensland parliament. And that's something we oppose. We support farming in this country. We support the hard work that our farmers do.
It's best summed up by the farmers who have been impacted by these laws. Peter Thompson, a beef and crop farmer in Queensland, has said that the laws in Queensland 'will lead to erosion because we won't be able to manage scrub'. He said:
It's really hard when we get these laws that have just been pushed through as a political football from the last election, affecting the livelihoods of businesses and the land.
… … …
I know we are only borrowing the land and I want to make sure it's in a better condition when I pass it on to my grandchildren.
We recognise Mr Thompson's ability to manage his land and to be a good environmental custodian. But the Labor Party, with their mates in the Greens, have done a pre-preference deal arrangement. They've done a preference deal with these guys. They're going to, once again, screw over Queensland farmers and not let them manage their own land.
Senator McGrath, a supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any other factors that could affect the agriculture sector?
We've also learnt this week that the Labor Party wants to make the cattle industry carbon neutral. Those of us who know the cattle industry would know that each beast emits about 60 kilograms of methane a year. That's around 30 times potent in carbon dioxide. So each beast over its three-year average life, before it's slaughtered, would average around five tonnes of carbon dioxide. Modelling done by the respected economist Brian Fisher, who used to head up ABARES, shows that Labor's plans would need a carbon price of $300 a tonne. That means that Labor's plans would add $1,600 a head to every beast in this country—
Senator Williams interjecting—
which is more than their value—thanks, Wacka—most of the time. That would add about five to six bucks a kilo to your meat prices in your shops, so snags would go up double and mince would go up about 50 per cent under a Labor Party that doesn't back farmers and wants to put the bill on average Australian households.
Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question.
What other risks are there to farming households and their communities?
Honourable senators interjecting—
We saw last year the devastating bushfires that impacted Central Queensland—
Senator Hinch on a point of order?
Mr President, when I can't hear a senator four seats away because there's continual screaming, something's wrong.
Quite right, Senator Hinch. My pleas have fallen on deaf ears today. Hopefully, yours have not. Senators, can we please show some courtesy to our colleagues who'd like to hear the answer. Senator Canavan.
As I was saying, Central Queensland, my area of the country, was devastated by fires last year. Indeed, I was down in Miriam Vale in the middle of the fires and almost everybody at the community centre came up to me and the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, and the local member, Ken O'Dowd, and complained about the Queensland government's land-clearing laws and their inability to manage their own fuel on their properties to protect their own homes and their own families. These laws in Queensland are putting average Australians and their families at higher risk from bushfire because they can't even manage their own land. The Labor Party, without any understanding of any of this, because they don't go to Miriam Vale, want to impose that on the whole of Australia. It is absurd, and it is an insult to the farming communities of this country that they have not consulted them before adopting this policy.
My question is to the Minister for , Senator McKenzie. When asked why the Nationals have refused to put One Nation last, the minister said: 'It doesn't mean we condone racism. You can walk gum and chew at the time.' Can the minister explain to the Senate what she means in this context by 'walk gum and chew at the time'?
Thank you, Senator Watt. Clearly—
Are you walking gum or chewing?
Order! Senator Watt, you've asked your question.
You raised a very good point, and so I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on that particular response that has just been quoted to me in the chamber, and it is about walking and chewing gum at the same time. That is actually what I should have said.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I will call Senator Watt when there is order.
The minister went on to say in relation to the Nationals' how-to-vote cards that—and I quote: 'You can take it from me that in Victoria it will look different to Queensland.' Why?
Government senators interjecting—
Order on my right! I will call Senator McKenzie when there's some silence in the chamber.
As I said to an earlier question from Senator Chisholm, our state divisions make that decision. I'm confident that there will be a variety of preference arrangements in different National Party seats right across the country, because we are the party of localism. We know that regional Australia isn't homogenous and what is right for Central Queensland may not be right for the Central Wheatbelt in WA. It may not be the same thing that the Victorian division believes is appropriate for the seat of Indi. So every single state division will take their own time to consider the candidates who put their hand up in the variety of seats and make their decision around the state executive. I'm one vote on the Victorian division state executive, but that's the process our party goes through every single election and we won't be changing it.
Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Molan. Sorry, I call Senator Watt. My apologies, I miscounted your questions.
Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister explain why the Nationals are willing to stand up to One Nation in Victoria but not in Queensland?
I think you misunderstood my answer, Senator Watt. I said that each division will take their own decision. I don't have a crystal ball, nor would I presume to direct state divisions on what they should do. Our process is clear; it is unchanged. And, closer to the election, you will all know what the National Party will be preferencing in which seat.
Now it's Senator Molan's turn.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. How is the Liberal-National government growing a stronger economy—a serious question—and driving jobs growth by supporting Australian exports?
I thank Senator Molan for his question. I do note that the only questions that have related to the strength of the economy or the benefits of a strong economy today have come from Liberal and National MPs and senators. Senator Molan, thank you for your question, which gives an opportunity to highlight on this budget day the strength of the Australian economy.
As my colleagues Senator Reynolds and Senator Cash have already highlighted, we have seen phenomenal jobs growth under our government—jobs growth that has been fuelled in part by record export performance. Last year, Australia recorded a record trade surplus of some $22.2 billion. This is a record surplus of Australia exporting more than we import. In fact, last year was the first year since 1973 that in each and every month of the year Australia exported more than we imported—a demonstration of the fact that our trade policies have worked and are working, and our government in this year's budget is committed to making sure that they keep working to continue to grow Australia's economy into the future.
Our trade policies have opened up market access across North Asia, with trade deals with Japan, China and Korea, through the Trans-Pacific Partnership and of course through deals we have most recently struck with countries such as Indonesia and Hong Kong. We've also recently announced that we're going to boost funding to the Export Market Development Grants scheme by a further $60 million. This builds on $75 million that our government had already put in place. Do you know what that contrasts with? It contrasts with the $100 million that the previous, Labor, government cut from the Export Market Development Grants scheme. When they were in office, not a single trade deal was commenced and concluded, and they cut export grants. And what did we have as a consequence? We had a weaker economy. What have we done? We've done trade deals and backed exporters. What have we got? A stronger economy, more jobs and a record trade surplus.
Senator Molan, a supplementary question.
What are the benefits of a strong free-trade agenda for the national economy, and how is it helping to secure Australia's future?
Indeed, a strong level of exports underpins the rest of our economy. It doesn't just help fuel the nearly 1.3 million jobs that have been created under our government. It also helps fuel government revenue, because we've got fewer people receiving welfare and more people in work and paying tax. That allows us to reduce taxes further, as our government has done and is doing. It has reduced taxes for small business, reduced taxes for PAYE salary earners and created a circumstance in which Australians who earn get to keep more of what they earn, where those who work hard get to keep more of those earnings. And of course it allows us, as it has done, to bring the budget back to surplus. Do you know the last time we saw a Labor Party surplus? The last Labor Party surplus was in 1989. Senator Paterson was just two at the time! Senator Steele-John hadn't even been born the last time the Labor Party delivered a budget surplus! Our government, through trade and other policies, has brought us back to— (Time expired)
A final supplementary question, Senator Molan.
What are the risks to free trade and to the government's ambitious trade and pro-jobs agenda?
To continue to grow exports, you need to have a strong economy. To have a strong economy, businesses need to actually be able to invest, and they're not going to invest under the weight of $200 billion worth of extra taxes that the Labor Party propose. They're not going to invest in a world where they see energy prices and electricity prices continuing to go up. They're not going to invest in a world where they see industrial relations uncertainty from a government that is acting entirely at the behest of the trade union movement. These are the threats that the Australian economy would face were there to be a change of government at the next election.
The contrast could not be stronger. Our government promised to balance the budget, and we have; we promised a stronger economy, and we've delivered; and we promised to create jobs, and we've exceeded our targets, delivering 1.3 million jobs. We promised to go out to the world and back Australian exporters, and we've done so, and they're exporting in record volumes. That's the difference a coalition Liberal-National government makes to the Australian economy. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence Industry (Senator Reynolds) to a question without notice asked by Senator O'Neill today relating to employment.
As the last cab off the rank to be promoted, Senator Reynolds, took just 16 seconds to contradict herself during a train wreck interview on Sky News on 10 March 2019. It might have been the fastest backflip in political history. One second Senator Reynolds was disagreeing with her colleague Senator Cormann's comments about wage flexibility being a 'deliberate feature' of the government's policies. She wrongly claimed that it was a suggestion by Bill Shorten. Having learnt that it was a comment from her finance minister, Senator Cormann, she performed a two-step, double-pike backflip. Two contradictory answers in 16 seconds is a record. I think we can agree that in this train wreck interview it was Senator Reynolds's fundamental lack of understanding of economics that was on full display. And to demonstrate that she still hasn't learnt anything, she couldn't even admit that she had mucked up in question time here today. Instead of talking about what her government is doing for wages, Senator Reynolds drove the train further off the tracks by saying:
Really when he's talking about wages, what is Bill Shorten actually talking about? He's talking about the politics of envy.
The only envy I see is from those opposite in their obsession over what Bill Shorten and the Labor Party are doing. No matter how many Liberal ministers humiliate themselves on television, their policy message to Australians is clear: they want to continue to have wages stagnate, they want your wages to be low; it's a deliberate strategy of their government.
Wages growth is the lowest on record, and the Prime Minister isn't doing anything about it. The Prime Minister's only idea is to pretend to deal with low wages by offering a tax cut to Australians. However, this tax cut is fundamentally lower than Labor's bigger, better and fairer tax plan. This is a divided, chaotic and completely out-of-touch government with no plan for Australia's future. Under this government, everything is going up except for wages. Wage rates haven't moved in years, and families are struggling to get ahead. Families in this country are struggling to make their own family budgets. Households and many families are having to dip into their savings to pay for essentials like groceries, petrol, power prices and their rent or mortgage.
As Treasurer, and now as Australia's Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison has presided over the lowest wage growth since records began, yet he wants to further cut the wages of hardworking Australians by getting rid of penalty rates. This is how out of touch this government is, and I believe that the Australian people see this government for what it truly is. They're heartless, they're hard, they have no compassion and they have no understanding of what's happening in their own community. All Australians need a pay rise, particularly those on low wages, but this government is not providing any leadership whatsoever on that.
Contrast that to what Labor have already announced as far as our policies are concerned. The only way to see wages increase, to have a living wage, is to elect a Labor Shorten government and to kick this government out of office. Labor will do what those opposite wouldn't do. The minimum wage shouldn't leave families in poverty. We shouldn't have workers having to work two or three jobs to try to meet their family budget commitments. We will fix the law to make sure that the minimum wage is a living wage. A Shorten Labor government will reverse the cuts to penalty rates, take steps to close the gender pay gap, and crack down on sham contracting, wage theft, and the exploitation of Australian workers. This is all that is needed. We have put our policies out there. This government has failed the Australian community and Australian workers. The only way to put more money in your pockets to help our local economies is to elect a Shorten Labor government at the election, which we expect to be announced in a matter of days. (Time expired)
I just want to say, for the benefit of those who are perhaps new to this chamber, that we just heard a paid political advertisement about what Labor might do after the election. That's fair enough, except that I can talk about what the government has done over the last six years to bring about over a million new jobs. We've brought about an unemployment rate which is hovering around five per cent. We've brought a lot more people into the labour market. More women than ever are participating in the labour market. We can talk about what happens to incomes. Incomes are a multiple of wages and jobs, and jobs have been going up all this time. Fuelling those jobs is the fruit of 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth, something that we have a challenge to continue.
What we will be doing at the election, if we want to talk about elections, is talking to the Australian people about the fact that it is a referendum on whether they want the policies which have produced over these six years of economic growth, employment, rising incomes for Australians and rising living standards through more people being in work, reducing the levels of welfare dependency, or whether they want put in place a whole series of programs which seek to raise taxes—allegedly to increase spending—and raise costs whether that be through environmental policies or increased regulation across other sectors of the economy. That's what regulation does: it increases costs. Nothing is costless.
The opposition put out an environment policy yesterday without a single model or costing. There was no indication, industry sector by industry sector, of what they would have to contribute in the abatement tasks that were set under the climate change policy and what that might mean in output and jobs. That's a mere detail, allegedly, which will be left until after the election, and that is the worry. We're being sold a pig in a poke. We're being told: 'Trust me. Just worry about the high-level aspirations behind our policies and the detail—the concrete detail—will be done after the election.' Well, this government has spent six years dealing with the concrete detail, putting in place the detailed policies that, tonight, will lead to the first surplus since the last Howard government, and that is important.
Setting up the place for surpluses, not as an end in themselves, will allow us—through the economic cycle—to raise money when times are good so that, when times go bad, we have an insurance policy to fall back on. We got through the global financial crisis because we had an insurance policy. We had no net debt because the Howard government, in its early days, had taken the hard decisions to rein in spending and find appropriate revenue bases. That's what it took. It took those hard decisions, and it's taken hard decisions over six years—firm expenditure restraint, the greatest expenditure restraint in 50 years, coupled with the recovery in revenue that is going on in the economy—for us to be on the trajectory to surpluses, which could mean, by the end of the decade, that we may have no net debt. The importance of that is, for the next time there's a national downturn or we're subject to an adverse external shock, we will have the shock absorbers in our budget to deal with it. That's what that's about. It's going to be a great legacy to our children and grandchildren. And going with that will be a legacy of a record $75 billion infrastructure package, which is going to be an investment in the productive capacity of the economy. Yes, you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can have a better budget and you can spend on essential services and priorities, and that's what this government will be doing in the budget tonight.
Let's just finish on this point about Labor's policies. Labor says, 'We're being economically responsible. We're going to spend more, but we're going to tax more. We're going to have higher surpluses than the government.' The only problem with that is—as the economy now is delicately poised—if we run through $200 billion worth of more taxes and if we create bigger surpluses than the government is projecting—if that's what Labor want to do—that will actually be a break on the economy at a time when we need a steady economic policy which will see us through the potentially choppy times ahead.
I certainly want to take note of the answer by Senator Linda Reynolds to our questioner, Senator O'Neill. I actually happened to be sitting down in front of Sky News the day it happened and I thought, 'Oh, my goodness, this is probably worth watching a couple of times,' because the two-step, double-pike performance was extraordinary. But it made me cast my mind back to something that the Hon. Peter Costello said way back in 2015:
Then there were the ambitious members of the Government, woodchucks desperate for advancement. They repeat everything, real or imagined—
in an effort to please the minister or the Prime Minister. There we had it, in my view. Instead of just saying, 'Oh my goodness, I think I've stuffed that one up,' and answering the question like a normal person would in the street, we had a minister who attempted to act as if nothing had happened. It was abundantly clear to the interviewer and to the TV audience that it was not a very good performance. It's been variously described as 'untidy', 'a train wreck', 'catastrophic' and the like. But it goes right to the heart of the difference between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber. We actually do believe people are entitled to be paid more than the minimum wage, and people are entitled to, I believe, an increase in Newstart and an increase in the minimum wage.
There are many employers, reputable people, starting a business who simply ring up a government instrumentality and say: 'What is the minimum wage? I want to be legal, honest and above board. What's the minimum wage? I'll pay that.' If that is not reflective of what people need to have as a reasonable standard of living to pay their increases in their utility bills or their outgoings in education and health, then we, as a country, need to do something about that. This government has spent most of its time trying to drive down worker representation rights so they can't actually achieve a decent wage outcome through, dare I say it, a union. At the same time, they've tried to put the parameters of the economy such that it's extremely hard for increases to come through the system. We need to change that.
Senator Reynolds went from decrying the statement of her senior minister, Minister Cormann, to agreeing with it in the space of 25 or 30 seconds. That's quite an extraordinary achievement, really. It's more reflective of the chaos that's been this government—the 45th Parliament. We're in the shadows of it. We're probably not going to see it go on too much longer than the weekend. And we know this: there have been a number of changes in the prime ministerial position. More importantly, in my view, there have been an inordinate number of changes in the ministerial positions right down to the last reshuffle. It has not been good for this country or for any government to cope with that number of changes.
I'll place it firmly on the record here that I think Senator Reynolds is a hardworking, conscientious senator from Western Australia but, I believe—this is only my view, and I'm not shy about this—has perhaps been promoted a little bit in front of her capabilities or level of experience. That's what came through to me in that interview. She did not listen carefully. She wasn't aware of what the whole interview was about and she made a pretty fundamental mistake. It's not career-ending. It's not career-limiting, but you've got to be grown-up enough to just own up to it. Face up to it and say: 'There was a stuff-up. I made a goose of myself.' Own up to that and then move on. Learn from it. To observe, 'Nothing to see here,' and, 'I didn't do anything,' is really not the way. Hopefully, if our side of the chamber is correct, they'll have a reasonably long period in opposition to contemplate how they'll do things better next time. And I wish Senator Reynolds well in her future endeavours in the chamber. I've worked with her over a number of committees and I think she's a very conscientious and valuable member of the Senate. Hopefully, she won't have the opportunity of repeating the mistakes she made on that catastrophic, untidy TV interview with David Speers—who, coincidently, must be the most underrated journalist around because he keeps getting people to make elementary mistakes in full view of the camera.
I rise to take note of questions and answers from the opposition to Senator Reynolds. I have to admit, I agree with my colleague from across the chamber, Senator Gallacher, on one issue and one issue alone—that is, I have extraordinary admiration for Senator Linda Reynolds, now the Minister for Defence Industry and the seventh woman in the coalition's cabinet in the Morrison government. I think that's an extraordinary achievement. She is a highly qualified and a highly capable minister. I tip my hat to her. I find it, however, terribly disappointing to see, in one of the last question times before the end of the life of this parliament, that the opposition could go so low and be so devoid of ideas that their question time was devoted entirely to issues about Senator Reynolds and about preferences. Surely there are bigger fish to fry. Surely today, of all days, there are more issues to talk about.
Now, I understand that budget day is not a day for the opposition. In fact, really, whatever their message is today is entirely drowned out by the very good news that will be delivered by the Treasurer tonight. We will be delivering a budget surplus—a budget surplus that will be the first that we've been able to deliver in a decade, after the mismanagement of previous Labor governments. We are not just delivering a budget surplus but demonstrating that you can deliver a budget surplus while decreasing taxes, not increasing taxes—that it can be done without $200 billion in new taxes, it can be done without damaging the economy and it can be done without causing property prices to crash and rents to soar by imposing housing taxes. It can be done without punishing self-funded retirees. It can be done without punishing investors. It can be done without punishing businesses. And it can be done while delivering the essential services that a prosperous country like Australia deserves. There is record investment in schools; there is record investment in the PBS, with new drug listings on the PBS that will treat things like melanoma and breast cancer; and there is record investment in health that will fund the NDIS fully and will fund aged care—the essential services that Australians deserve.
The only reason that the coalition can deliver those essential services is that we have a strong economy. And, indeed, the only way to lift wages is to maintain that strong economy, because a strong economy means more jobs. You simply cannot get a pay rise if you don't have a job. Under the coalition, 1.2 million new jobs have been created over the life of this government, over the last 5½ years, in fact. One point two million more people have a job than when we were elected in 2013. Under Labor, however, the unemployment queues increased. A stronger economy means higher wages. Indeed, under this government, real minimum wages have been rising faster than they did under Labor, and they've been rising faster than wages in the rest of the economy.
Don't get me wrong; there is certainly more work to do. But a living wage is not the answer. A living wage is Sally McManus's answer. I might add that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, can't actually tell us what a 'living wage' is; no-one has been able to define what a 'living wage' is. He has, as we've seen, kowtowed to the wishes of the ACTU before—over and over again, in fact. Sally McManus's definition of a 'living wage' is 60 per cent of the average wage—with all her extensive experience in running businesses and her extensive understanding of economics! She's manning the puppet. She's pulling the strings. Poor old opposition leader Bill Shorten is simply the marionette. Sadly, though, he has form on this. He has a record of failure on wages. It was Mr Shorten who as a union leader stripped low-paid workers of their pay in exchange for benefits for him and for his union. In government, he did absolutely nothing when real minimum wages decreased and, in fact, wrote the Fair Work Act but never included the words 'living wage'. As I said, now he can't even describe exactly what a 'living wage' is. Certainly, Labor's $200 billion in higher taxes will cost jobs and will push wages down. (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of Minister Reynolds' responses in question time today to questions asked by Senator O'Neill. You'd think a policy as straightforward as a living wage would be something that the government could wrap their heads around. But, to listen to members opposite, it's really quite difficult. A living wage is, by definition, the minimum income a worker needs to meet their basic needs—to pay for food, housing, clothing and other essentials.
Under this government and its turnstile of prime ministers, wage growth has stagnated. We are seeing growth in the working poor. Australians are working harder and better, but, under this government, they aren't being fairly rewarded for their efforts. The record-low wages growth isn't something to be proud of. Making working families scrimp and forcing them into making decisions such as choosing whether to turn on the heater in winter because they may not be able to afford the power bill should not be a deliberate by-product of government policy. But this is something that confuses this government. We've had a senior government minister—the Minister for Finance and the Public Service no less—stating that record-low wages are a deliberate design feature, suggesting that keeping wages low is part of their economic strategy. It's no wonder that his colleague the Minister for Defence Industry is confused.
As we heard today, Senator Reynolds's initial reaction to the question about whether she agrees with her finance minister's assessment was telling. She ridiculed his statement, saying it showed a 'fundamental lack of understanding about economics'. But do you know what? She's absolutely right. Keeping wages low makes no economic sense. In the last five years, out-of-pocket costs to see a GP have gone up 24 per cent. Private health insurance premiums are up 30 per cent, electricity prices are up 15 per cent and long-day childcare costs are up 24 per cent. But, in the past year, company profits have grown five times faster than wages. So, when Senator Reynolds said that keeping wages low shows a 'fundamental lack of understanding about economics', no doubt she was thinking about how boosting wages is actually good for the economy and how stagnant wages have held back spending and put a handbrake on economic growth.
While the government seem confused about their economic policy and what it means for Australians, it's pretty clear to everyone else. Under this government the economy isn't working for everyday Australians. Everything is going up in Australia except people's wages. People are finding it harder to get ahead. Households are saving less, and families are being forced to dip further into their pockets to pay for essentials. Families are finding it harder to make ends meet. I'm sure we will see more of these stuff-ups and confusion in the Liberal policies tonight—tax cuts for big business and a few throwaways to the workers doing it tough.
In contrast, I can proudly say I fully support Labor's policies to reverse cuts to penalty rates, boost wages for workers and ensure that the minimum wage is a living wage. A fair go for Australia means a fair wage for working people. Labor's living-wage policy will directly benefit around 1.2 million Australians, or one in 10 workers. When low-paid workers get a pay rise, they spend it in the local shops; they spend it in cities like Darwin, communities like Wadeye and Borroloola, and towns like Alice Springs. It helps small businesses in Palmerston, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy.
As well as reversing the cuts to penalty rates to boost people's pay, Labor will make sure the minimum wage delivers a decent standard of living for families. Labor wants the Fair Work Commission to have the tools to determine what wage is required to provide a decent standard of living for low-paid workers. A living wage should ensure people earn enough to make ends meet and be informed by what it costs to live in Australia today—to pay for housing, food, utilities and a basic phone and data plan. It's not that hard to support.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale relating to climate change.
The Bureau of Meteorology informed the country that the first quarter of the year was the hottest ever on record—an entire degree above the previous record—and 2.2 degrees above the long-term average. Just think about that: 2.2 degrees over the long-term average in the first quarter of this year. It's remarkable stuff. In fact, it's terrifying. It's absolutely terrifying. Our climate system is breaking down. We are confronting a climate emergency, and it will only get more rapid, more chaotic and more disruptive unless we resolve to act and to act now. This is not a time to sit on the fence. This is not a time for platitudes. This is not a time to appease vested interests. This is a time for action. We need a plan based on the science and based on the reality of the climate emergency that is before us right now.
If we're going to have a plan, any serious plan has to acknowledge that the biggest contributor to global warming right now is coal. We can't let coal exports hide in the shadows anymore. It is Australia's biggest contributor to this global challenge and yet neither side of politics want to talk about it. They take their $3 million in donations from the coal industry, and that is the price for their silence. We're not going to let you ignore this. We won't accept your silence anymore.
Last week, we announced our Renew Australia 2030 plan. It shows that a clear, staged transition out of coal exports, as we invest $1.5 billion in building up our hydrogen and clean energy exports industry, is possible. It's not just possible; it returns incredible dividends for the nation. Of course some people will say it can't be done—the coal industry's too wealthy; it's too powerful. That's what they said about the banking industry when we first called for a royal commission into the banking industry—again, a lone voice on that issue. You see, according to our Renew Australia 2030 plan, we can transition the 45,000 people who work in the coal industry into new jobs and new industries, and we can help transition older workers to do the work that's necessary to rehabilitate mine sites. We can do that if we have a plan. And you know what? We would create 170,000 new jobs as a consequence of it.
What happens if we don't have a plan? The world stops buying our coal anyway, and these workers will be out of work with no plan for their future, for their kids' future or for the future of their local communities. It's either a plan right now, with governments recognising that this is a challenge we can't walk away from, or leaving it up to multinational companies to pull the pin at any time and then these people will be without a job and without a future. It's time for us to act. When Glencore caps coal production that sends a very clear signal about the direction of where coal is heading. And, yet, what's Labor and Liberal parties' response? Again, more silence. They didn't say a word.
The reality is that we can make this transition. We have to make this transition not just because our economy is heading in this direction but because if we are to be able to inhabit a planet and our kids are going to have a safe climate then we have no greater challenge before us. Japan has already said they will no longer be focusing on coal to power their economy—they are transitioning rapidly to hydrogen. Let's not forget that when we talk about coal exports the industries are notorious tax dodgers. For $33 billion in income they paid just $300 million in tax last year. That's 0.86 per cent of federal government revenues.
Only a few days ago we saw tens of thousands of Australian kids hitting the streets protesting for their future. What did they want? No Adani coalmine, no new coal or gas and 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030. What was the response from the Labor and Liberal parties? Again, there was more silence. They did not say a word. That silence won't be tolerated any longer. You cannot stay silent anymore. The future of these kids depends on it. We must take action; we must take it now.
Question agreed to.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 25 February 2019 of the Hon. Dr John Joseph Herron, Officer of the Order of Australia, a senator for the state of Queensland from 1990 to 2002. I call the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its profound sorrow at the death, on 25 February 2019, of the Honourable Dr John Herron, AO, a former Senator for Queensland, Ambassador and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in the Howard Government, places on record its gratitude for his long service to the Parliament and the nation, and extends its sincere sympathies to his family in their bereavement.
World-class surgeon, humanitarian, senator, minister, ambassador, husband, father and grandfather: having dedicated himself to the service of his nation, his state, his family and his fellow human beings, in the life and example of the Hon. Dr John Herron AO we see so very much of what true moral leadership means and of what it can achieve.
Born on 4 September 1932 in Home Hill, Queensland, John was the son of Irish immigrants James Herron and his wife, Elizabeth. By day they ran a family newsagency in Paddington and, for two years during his childhood, John would ride in the sidecar of a Harley-Davidson and deliver the morning paper, an experience that stoked a lifelong enthusiasm for that motorbike. Those formative years spent in a hardworking family setting shaped his own character and mentality and no doubt played a role in his future achievements.
A gifted student, after high school John secured a scholarship that allowed him to study a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery at the University of Queensland. So began his enduring passion for medicine, the vocation that would become the clear, golden thread that ran throughout his life. In a testament to his good nature and portending his future political interests, John expressed his gratitude for that scholarship in a personally penned letter to the then Prime Minister and founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies. At university, he dove head first into student life. He was elected president of the university's medical society and as a student union councillor, while also being a prolific contributor to the university's medical school journal.
Upon his graduation, he set to work as a surgeon, first at Princess Alexandra Hospital between 1968 and 1974 and later as the senior surgeon at Mater Public Hospital from 1974 until the year of his election to parliament in 1990. Rising to become one of Brisbane's most prominent and well-regarded doctors, John served as president of the Queensland branch of the Australian Medical Association from 1988 to 1989, and, commendably, in the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps and the RAAF Reserve for a full three decades.
On 9 March 1958, John met the woman who was to become his wife. He married Jan Kenny less than a year later, on 30 January 1959, and they would go on to raise a large and loving family of 10 children: Maryann, Elizabeth, Nicholas, Samantha, Maryrose, Catriona, Annabel, Wilhelmine, Thomas and John, each of them loved dearly. Together they comprised the family that was always the light of his life.
Family life was not without its challenges. Maryann, their first born, was born with Down syndrome and was unable to talk. Former Senator Sue Boyce has told me that John used to frequently tell the story that at the time of Maryann's birth doctors said to her parents to put her in a home and definitely not to have any more children. John used to chuckle as he reflected that that advice was, of course, advice they clearly rejected, going on to have a further nine children. Through the Herrons' lives, they were, though, touched with the tragedy of Maryann's passing in 1997. Their love for her drove them through her life and after to advocate passionately for the rights and dignity of Australians with Down syndrome. They played a leading role in the formation of the Down Syndrome Association of Queensland in the 1970s and, throughout their lives, commendably turned their personal and family hardship towards the public good.
True to form, it was John's concerns about the direction of public health policy that first spurred him into political action. John was an active and well-regarded member of the Queensland Liberal Party for many years and served as its state president from 1980 to 1984. He entered the parliament as a senator for Queensland in March 1990 but returned to the state presidency in mid-2001 and played a key role in bolstering the Queensland Liberal Party in support of the Howard government's re-election, which was secured later that year.
In this place John served on a number of committees and played a key role in two major Senate inquiries, addressing breast cancer screening and the Australian tobacco industry. As a surgeon who often treated women who were battling breast cancer, he was a reliable advocate for additional funding and support for breast cancer detection at a time when it was nowhere near as prominent and successful in the public mind as it is today. John also served as shadow parliamentary secretary to the shadow minister for health and, later, also for human services from 1994 to 1996.
With the election of the Howard government in 1996, John was made Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. As minister, John's emphasis was principally on Indigenous health and welfare. For him, material improvements in the lives and fortunes of our First Australians were of utmost importance. Although he inherited the portfolio at a time when it faced sensitive and protracted issues, at his retirement he reflected not just on the portfolio's influence on his life and world view but on his contribution to making a difference in that important space.
John's outstanding moral character also shone through outside the walls of this parliament and, indeed, outside our nation. As the world reeled at the scale and carnage of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, John leapt into action and volunteered his surgical skills to save and rebuild lives. Taking leave from the Senate, he spent six weeks in Zaire's Katale refugee camp—a shocking experience that impacted him to his core. He let those experiences fuel his passion for justice. Once back home, he played an important role in ensuring that Australia ratified the creation of the International Criminal Court. He also advocated for additional Australian funding for the re-establishment of Rwanda's health services. His time in Rwanda tied him inextricably to its people. He keenly supported a young Rwandan refugee in starting their own medical career in Australia. Just last year, he served as guest of honour at the commemoration of the genocide's 24th anniversary in Brisbane. For his years of dedication he received the Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal in 2000 and the Australian Service Medal. Rwandan community leaders have been amongst the many tributes and accolades that have flowed since John's death. It is clear that his love and care for Rwanda's people were richly reciprocated, and rightly so.
Those acts of kindness were the hallmark of his life in parliament and more broadly. When then Democrat Cheryl Kernot lost her home in a 1991 arson attack, fellow Queenslander John was on hand not simply to console her but also to give her practical advice gleaned from the loss of his own home in a fire years earlier. It was unprompted acts of kindness like that which leant John such moral authority and earned him the respect of colleagues on all sides of politics.
Departing from the Senate in 2002, John's service to the nation was not finished. He went on to serve as Australia's Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See from 2002 to 2006. Having been born into a family of rich Irish heritage and having concluded his senatorial career with a famous Irish blessing, there is no doubt that John's personal affection for Ireland helped him to serve ably as Australia's representative there.
After his diplomatic posting, he leveraged his decades of medical expertise as chair of the Australian National Council on Drugs and brought down a landmark report dubbed the Herron paper, which called for strong action on the growing use of ice and amphetamines. My wife, Courtney Morcombe, recalls serving alongside John as a member of the ANCD and remembers fondly his work, leadership, insight and compassion in that role. He also served diligently as the chairman of the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation from 2007 to 2010.
As a devout Catholic, John also worked as a World Youth Day ambassador in 2008. He relished the chance to guide and counsel young Australian Catholics in that role. John's deep and abiding personal faith and his lengthy service to the Catholic community saw him appointed as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem and as a Papal Knight of St Gregory years earlier. This was later complemented by his receipt of the Australian Catholic University's highest honour, Doctor of the University, in May 2012. Finally, in recognition of a life given selflessly to the service of his nation and his fellow human beings, in 2012 John was appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia.
Upon reflection, it is clear that John Herron lived many remarkable lives all in one. The scale and diversity of his achievements speak to a man of drive and energy and also to one of kindness and generosity. Nowhere was that kindness more on display than in his family life. For all of the success that he enjoyed, it speaks volumes of John's humility and character that he always held his 60 years of devoted marriage to Jan to be his greatest achievement. It is to his large and adoring family that I speak in concluding. To Jan, John's nine surviving children, his 24 grandchildren, their extended family, and all those whose lives were touched by his, on behalf of the Australian government, I offer our sincerest condolences on the passing of a loving husband, a wonderful father and a truly great Australian.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to express our condolences following the passing of the Hon. Dr John Herron AO, former senator and minister, at the age of 86 years. As I begin, I wish to convey the opposition's sympathy to his family and his friends, particularly those present in the Senate today.
John Herron served our nation at home and abroad. He was described by the Prime Minister he served, John Howard, as a devout Catholic and dedicated humanitarian but a hard-headed pragmatist. He fulfilled a distinguished career in medicine before entering politics. His timing was good. Of the 12 years he spent in the Senate, six years were in government and mostly on the front bench. As Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, he tackled one of the most difficult and contentious portfolios in the first two terms of the Howard government. He was liked and respected by his colleagues and was described by a former Labor senator, John Faulkner, as 'a pretty avuncular sort of bloke, affable and easygoing around this building'. He went on to serve as an ambassador before returning again to leadership in medical causes.
A lifelong Queenslander, John Herron was born in the Burdekin shire at Home Hill. He completed his school education at the former Christian Brothers College in Townsville, which, I understand, was known as Our Lady's Mount, a Catholic boys school at Stanton Hill, which has been succeeded by Ignatius Park College. His first vocation was in medicine. He graduated from the University of Queensland with a Bachelor of Medicine and a Bachelor of Surgery in 1956. He went on to practise as a surgeon, notably at the Princess Alexandra and the Mater hospitals in Brisbane, becoming chief surgeon at the latter.
At the time he began his first representative career, Dr Herron served on a number of medical councils, including with the Australian Association of Surgeons and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. After serving as the state chairman of both these organisations at various times, he was President of the Australian Medical Association, Queensland branch, in 1988 and again in 1989. In 1974, he received the Justin Fleming Medal from the Australian Association of Surgeons. Prior to entering parliament, Dr Herron also served for over 30 years in the Australian Defence Force, including in the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps reserve and the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve.
His first significant political office was President of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party from 1980 until 1984. He would fulfil this role again in 2001 and 2002. The first period in office was marked by a determination to improve ministerial accountability and attack the corruption that had enveloped the National Party state government. It was a demonstration of Dr Herron's moral leadership that John Howard and others would come to value. Along with Senator Macdonald, John Herron was first elected to represent Queensland in the Senate in 1990. He was twice re-elected, in 1996 and in 2001, before resigning his place in 2002.
His first speech concentrated on health policy—his area of professional expertise—while also setting down the importance of what he described as 'family life as the basis for civilised living'. He believed that 'the standards of a free society should support family ideals'. On both matters, he saw the philosophy of liberalism as the most convincing and humane answer to the problems he saw in Australia at that time. Critically, in a demonstration of his pragmatism, he favoured not what he said was 'an appeal to moral values or adherence to the Ten Commandments' but policy responses in line with these values that would make a practical impact where they were needed.
He only had a brief career on the back bench, being promoted into the opposition shadow ministry in 1993. As a shadow parliamentary secretary, Dr Herron served in the health portfolio, well aligned with his medical qualifications and experience. At the same time, he served as Chair of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee. He took part in what were described as two groundbreaking Senate inquiries—one into breast cancer screening and one into the tobacco industry. The legacy of the recommendations was not to be outdone by what Dr Herron saw as another signature achievement—the limitation on the Senate hours of sitting. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his part in that!
Dr Herron also maintained a practical engagement in medicine by volunteering as a doctor for CARE Australia in Rwanda during the course of his first term as a senator. This gruelling eight weeks was traumatising but also moving. As a consequence, he became an advocate for the International Criminal Court.
The election of the Howard government saw John Herron move into Howard's first ministry. Dr Herron took on the role of Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs from the beginning of the Howard government in 1996. He held that portfolio until January 2001. When he gave his farewell remarks in the Senate in 2002, he described these years as 'the most fascinating years of my life'. They were also controversial and divisive. Not everyone saw Indigenous policy in the same way as the Howard government. Dr Herron took on his role not long after the passage of the Native Title Act 1993, something that was highly contentious for those in the Liberal and National parties. The High Court decision in the Wik Peoples v Queensland in December 1996 would ensure that native title remained at the forefront of the debate in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. The court found native title rights could coexist with pastoral leases. The response was the 10-point plan, which only passed the Senate after substantial debate and amendment. While Dr Herron was not directly responsible for the policy and the legislative response of the High Court's decision, there's no doubt that this was a pivotal event in the relationship between the first peoples and the government.
Dr Herron saw the Aboriginal affairs portfolio as an opportunity to inject a mantra of self-sufficiency into Indigenous policy. He was the architect of practical reconciliation. As the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Robert Hill, said following Dr Herron's farewell remarks in this place:
John Herron, in his typical way, went out and visited the communities and assessed in his own mind what their real needs were.
He wanted to address basic needs—jobs, health, education and housing. Recognising the particular challenges that came with remote living, he wanted to ensure that the acute problems of lack of basic services and infrastructure were properly addressed, even if this meant a decline in funding for urban and rural services. This approach was not without its critics. A critical working relationship in his portfolio was with ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Early on, he sought to form a constructive working relationship with its senior officers in the face of strained circumstances, although this was not always achieved. Further evidence that life in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs portfolio was not smooth sailing can be found in the decision of the Senate to twice censure Dr Herron—in 1996 and 2000.
Another significant event was the release of the Bringing them home report in 1997. In response, Dr Herron announced $63 million in practical assistance for those affected by the former practices of separating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. This included funding for the development of Indigenous family support and parenting programs, boosting culture and language maintenance programs, and professional counselling and support, although not compensation, nor a formal apology. While he hoped the response would enable people to 'move together in a more positive, more harmonious and fairer future, in the true spirit of reconciliation', the idea of reconciliation itself was not a matter of political unity. Dr Herron stood up against then Independent member of the House of Representatives Pauline Hanson, now Senator Pauline Hanson, for her comments that reconciliation was being 'forced down mainstream Australia's throat'. He was appalled by these comments. Speaking in 2002, Labor senator Trish Crossin—noting that at that time some 28 per cent of the population living in the Northern Territory, which she represented, were Indigenous—acknowledged his significant contribution to Indigenous people—sometimes despite the attitudes and constraints within his own government.
John Herron's resignation from the Senate in 2002 precipitated his appointment as Australia's Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See—a terrific combination, Mr President, but, unfortunately, no longer together—at a time when the incumbent held office in Dublin and the Vatican simultaneously. I'm not sure how you do that, but that's what he did. This was quite the full circle for the Catholic son of an immigrant Irishman. Dr Herron served in this role between 2003 and 2005. On Dr Herron's return to Australia, he was chair of the Australian National Council on Drugs. His lifetime of distinguished service in the Parliament of Australia, international relations through diplomatic and humanitarian roles, professional medical associations and the community was formally recognised in 2012, when he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia. In further recognition of his contribution, he also received the Australian Service Medal, the Humanitarian Overseas Medal and, from the Australian Medical Board, the Bancroft Medal.
John Herron died in February and was honoured with a state funeral at St Stephen's Catholic Cathedral in Brisbane. John Howard said this about Dr Herron:
John Herron gave a lifetime of service to the medical profession, his nation and the Liberal Party … he brought sincerity and dedication to everything he did.
Again, on behalf of the opposition, I express our deepest condolences to his family and friends.
My friend and colleague the late John Herron AO was a wonderful man in so many ways: a great family man, husband and father, a skilled surgeon, a real Liberal leader, a caring and contributory parliamentarian, an effective minister and a demonstrative humanitarian—in fact, an all-round lovely man. John and I came into the Senate together in 1990 and worked together until John resigned in 2001 to become our ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See. John and his lovely and gracious wife, Jan, and Lesley and I, spent many long hours together, often on long drives campaigning and working around Queensland, and we got to know each other very well. We shared many a thought, many a laugh and many experiences. I always remember Jan's amazement and wonder at the unique landscape on the drive from Winton to Boulia in north-west Queensland. I saw John's compassion in volunteering to use his surgical skills to help in war-torn Africa while still serving as a parliamentarian, and I remember well the trauma, which he couldn't hide, when he returned to parliament. John's wisdom and calmness was of benefit to all who served with him.
John and I contested a very interesting preselection back in 1989. I know John had his moments at the time, particularly when a new contestant was thrown into the election at the last moment, in the form of a wife of a Knight of the Realm, who, curiously, had previously been a contestant with John's wife's Jan in a Miss Queensland competition in the early 1950s. In that earlier contest, Jan did not prevail. But, on a night that I will never forget, John won No. 2 position on the Senate ticket fairly and squarely, and Jan, who was sitting next to my wife, was heard to exclaim to all in earshot in her excitement and pride how 'this fairness had not occurred in the earlier contest', or words to that effect.
I could go on for hours extolling John's virtues and the contribution he made to his community, to his family, to the medical profession, to the Liberal Party, to parliament, to government and to the nation. John would never be a slave to time and he accordingly made it a habit never to wear a watch. But as the professional that he was in everything he did, John would be first to appreciate on the day of the federal budget, with only a few days left in this parliament, that time is precious. Accordingly, I will curtail my remarks there. I did speak to Jan at the state funeral but I now publicly extend to Jan and John's nine surviving children my condolences.
I ask honourable senators to join in a moment of silence to signify assent to the motion.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
It is with deep regret that I also inform the Senate of the death on 10 March this year of Gordon Douglas McIntosh, a senator for Western Australia from 1974 to 1987.
I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death on 10 March 2019 of Mr Gordon McIntosh, a former senator for Western Australia, and places on record its gratitude for his distinguished services to the parliament and extends its profound sympathies to its family in their bereavement.
A dedicated parliamentarian who supported an unapologetic commitment to humanitarian principles, former Senator Gordon McIntosh's passing sees the nation lose a fiery advocate for human rights in our region. Like so many who helped to build our great nation, Gordon's story was that of an immigrant. He was born in Glasgow on 29 March 1925 to a shipbuilder and swimming pool attendant—Gordon McIntosh, after whom he was named, and Dorothy Robson. Growing up in Scotland, Gordon's formative years exposed him to the realities of working class life and, from a young age, he came to know what it meant to truly put one's body on the line for their job.
Having attended both Drumoyne Primary School and Govan High School, at the young age of 15 he began to work in earnest, first as an apprentice fitter and turner in the bustling shipyards of Glasgow. Never one to shy away from hard work, much of his adolescence was spent working long hours at physically laborious jobs. Away from the shipyards, he spent time in a Glasgow lamp-making factory and a metal foundry while also serving as a mechanic in the Royal Air Force from 1946 to 1948 following the conclusion of the Second World War. These varied roles left him with an impressive array of skills and life experience. By the time he had reached just 25 years of age, he had filled the shoes of a mechanic, fitter and turner, and maintenance engineer. Gordon's life would soon change dramatically. He married Elizabeth Graham, known as Betty, on 31 March 1950. In that same year, the young couple made the decision of so many others in their generation—to cross the globe and migrate to Australia via the free ex-servicemen's passage. In time, the pair would have two sons, Gordon and Craig.
Settling with his family in Perth, Gordon quickly took up work as a dye maker at the Perth Mint, where he would become a fixture over 22 years of work. Notably, after Singapore's declaration of independence in 1968, he played a significant role in helping it establish its own mint in what was a clear precursor of his later interest in Australia's role in the Asian region. The help that he provided to Singapore was clearly well received. I note that at the time of his passing, some decades later, condolences came in from some of those who had worked alongside Gordon at the Singapore Mint.
Gordon was a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union in Scotland. He served as a union representative in Western Australia from the 1950s through to 1972. He was also a key figure in the Como-Mill Point and Collier-Manning branches of the Labor Party and served a hefty 26 years on its state executive. Knowing what the state executives of political parties are like, many would joke that you get less for life. Nonetheless, he was preselected from that service for the third position on the Western Australia Labor Senate ticket in May 1972 and at the double dissolution election of 1974 he was elected to the Australian Senate.
Still sporting an unmistakable Scottish accent, which one commentator touted as being more Billy Connolly than Commonwealth upper house—Gordon reminds us of somebody else who's here today—Gordon threw himself into the task of representing his adopted home at the highest levels. Delivering his first speech in this place on 10 July 1974, he made clear that representing his state and its interests would be a firm priority. His passion for Western Australia was obvious. He would routinely laud its scale, beauty and economic potential and it was always top of mind for him to ensure all Western Australians enjoyed the same fair treatment as those on the east coast.
Over the course of his senatorial career, Gordon held a number of roles, including those of Deputy Opposition Whip from 1976 to 1980, Deputy Government Whip from 1983 to 1987 and Temporary Chair of committees from 1980 to 1983. Gordon also chaired the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence from 1983 to 1987, serving on the committee for the majority of his parliamentary career. It was here that he pursued the international issues for which he was most well known. At times his interest in foreign affairs took him far beyond the walls of this place, including a period as an Australian parliamentary adviser at the United Nations General Assembly in New York for several months in late 1983.
Gordon was a fierce advocate for the things he believed in and was never afraid to challenge the status quo. By disposition, he was a man of internationalist principles. That sentiment came to the fore in his ferocious criticism of French nuclear testing in the pacific. Not content with relegating his criticism to set speeches, in April of 1982 he was, in fact, present on a protest ship when it was detained by the French Navy after entering an exclusion zone. Unperturbed, it was only a few weeks later he was at the forefront of protests against an American nuclear-powered vessel when he was visiting Brisbane, a position that caused no small degree of consternation within the ranks of his party's executive at the time. However, Gordon was most prominently known for his staunch support for the self-determination of the East Timorese people. This was an issue that consumed much of his energy and passion in the parliament and one which he was willing to take a stand and make a stand even against his own party. That passion did not dim with his departure from parliamentary life. In June 1987, he continued to follow and to contribute on the topic in the years after his retirement. Such was the length and profile of his commentary that, after decades of advocacy, he was formally invested into the Order of Timor-Leste in December 2014.
In closing, and in reflecting once more on the life of a deeply driven Australian public servant, I believe that the recent words of the government of Timor-Leste captured the sentiment well. They said:
Gordon McIntosh will not be forgotten in Timor-Leste and will be forever remembered with great affection, admiration and respect. In this sadness moment, we mourn his death, but we celebrate his contribution.
The people of Timor-Leste, the people of Australia and, no doubt, those in his country of birth all recognise the contribution that Gordon made. It is to Gordon's family, friends and all those touched by his remarkable life and his generosity of spirit that, on behalf of the government, I offer our sincerest condolences.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to express our condolences following the passing of Gordon Douglas McIntosh, former Labor senator, at the age of 93. At the outset, I convey the opposition's most sincere sympathy to his family and friends. Gordon McIntosh was a Scottish metalworker who made his way to the Australian Senate. Migrating to Australia, like so many others in the postwar period, he was an office bearer in his union before being elected to represent his state of Western Australia in the nation's parliament. There he became a fierce advocate for human rights, particularly for the people of East Timor.
Gordon McIntosh was born in Scotland, beginning his working life in the Glasgow shipyards. He was a fitter and turner and later a maintenance engineer. He also served in the Royal Air Force as a technician from 1945 to 1948. Gordon McIntosh was proud of his Scottish heritage. Like another current Labor senator, this was not easily disguised, as his accent became immediately apparent as soon as he opened his mouth. He was also a proud Western Australian, emigrating in 1950 with his new wife, Elizabeth. He became a die maker at the Perth Mint, where he was employed for 22 years.
Always a member of a union, both in Scotland and Australia, he became an officer in the branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union in his home state from the early 1950s. This culminated in service as state president from 1968 to 1972. The union joined with others to become the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union, and he was the state vice-president of this body from 1972 until 1974.
Concurrently with his union involvement, Mr McIntosh joined the Australian Labor Party. He quickly rose to prominence, taking a seat on the state executive in 1952 and holding office continuously until 1978. At the time, he worked hard to energise its branches, and, in 1972, he was preselected for the Senate. Gordon McIntosh was first elected as a Labor senator for Western Australia in 1974. The prevalence of simultaneous dissolution elections at this time meant that he faced the people more than the average senator, winning re-election three times before his retirement prior to the 1987 poll.
Mr McIntosh was immediately concerned to emphasise that he represented the whole of his vast home state. In his first speech, he drew to the attention of the Senate the disparity in service delivery between metropolitan Perth and regional areas. In particular, he cited disadvantage in the fields of education, cultural activities, social activities and community amenities. He saw a role for national government to ensure that the whole of a state like Western Australia was treated as an equal party with the rest of the nation, including through bearing in mind the specific challenges of remoteness and vastness.
During his tenure in the Senate, he served the federal parliamentary Labor Party as deputy whip in the Senate in the opposition and in government from 1976 to 1980 and 1983 to 1987. Unsurprisingly, for a lifelong unionist, issues of industrial relations were prominent in his contributions in the Senate, especially in response to the Fraser government's policies in this area. However, as a demonstration that those of his generation were broad in outlook, the most continuous theme of his time as a senator was on the wider world.
Mr McIntosh had an abiding interest in foreign affairs and human rights. He served on the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for the entirety of his Senate career, something that was quite unusual for a senator who served for over a decade. He was also the chair of this committee from 1983 until 1987. In addition, he was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence from 1974 to 1975 and again from 1980 to 1983.
He was able to travel overseas on parliamentary delegations on multiple occasions. These delegations took him to East Asia and South-East Asia, in particular to Indonesia and East Timor, as well as to Vanuatu, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Poland. For three months in 1983, he was the parliamentary adviser to the Australian delegation at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Mr McIntosh campaigned on matters including nuclear testing in the Pacific, aid to Vietnam, refugees from Irian Jaya in Papua New Guinea and human rights in Chile under the Pinochet regime.
If there is one international cause for which Mr McIntosh is most associated, it's East Timor. He was described in 1983 as:
… an implacable Labor campaigner for East Timor self-determination.
Following his first visit to East Timor in 1975, he never tired in his advocacy for the cause or in holding successive Australian governments to account for their actions. A review of the Hansard record demonstrates how frequently he asked questions and made speeches on the rights of the East Timorese, the Indonesian occupation and the role of the Australian government.
In 1983, he tabled a report for the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence into human rights abuses and the conditions of the people of East Timor. This report was highly contentious for the way in which it:
… declared the Indonesian invasion and occupation to be 'an illegal act', described gross violations of human rights and called for an internationally recognised act of self-determination.
Mr McIntosh's campaigning for the rights of the East Timorese during his Senate career and after he retired was recognised in 2004 when he was invested with the Order of Timor-Leste. At the time he was described as:
… the conscience of the Federal Parliament on the matter of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and the repression of the Timorese people.
On the occasion of Mr McIntosh's retirement from the Senate, the then Labor leader in the Senate, John Button, described what he called his characteristic good humour. In doing so he cited Mr McIntosh's suggestion to Labor minister and former Attorney-General Gareth Evans that Senator Evans would be an ideal candidate to fill the vacancy on the High Court. Mr McIntosh continued, 'After all, you're not going anywhere in politics,' and the rest is history. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Fred Chaney, farewelled his fellow West Australian from the chamber by lamenting the loss of a political representative whose background and experience was that of a skilled tradesman.
Gordon McIntosh was a man of commitment and principles. He committed his life to the Labor movement, to his union and to the Australian Labor Party. His commitment was rewarded by the people of Western Australia with a place in the Senate. He was also committed to principles, in particular to equality, fairness and human rights at home and abroad. Whether it be on the factory floor or the international stage, Gordon McIntosh was a ceaseless advocate for the rights of others. His death is a loss for our movement. Again, I express the opposition's condolences to his family and friends.
I wish to make a few remarks about Senator Gordon Douglas McIntosh, and in doing so I pay my respects and send my condolences and love to his family and friends. As many have observed today, Senator McIntosh, or Gordon McIntosh, as I knew him, was a principled man. In the mid-eighties, I joined the Labor Party as a very young and naive person, and one of the first members I met at that time was Gordon McIntosh. What I knew about Gordon was he was fierce and he was passionate. I have to say when I met him on committees I was a little afraid of him because he was always a fierce advocate.
Senator Farrell has outlined some of the passions of Gordon Douglas McIntosh, and those values align with mine. He was a fierce advocate for nuclear disarmament, and at that time in the eighties it was a very big issue. It was a big issue confronting Australia and the world. It was a time when we had many visits from American nuclear-powered ships. It was one of the things that I protested about, and it was one of the shared values that I had with Gordon.
He was also a committed unionist. He was a member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. Not only was he a proud member of the Labor Party but he was a very proud metal worker. You knew that about Gordon, and, as others have said, he had a very strong Scottish accent. He and I would often be on various committees together, and, even though our values aligned and he was a member of the left, as I am, he was someone to be feared and he was someone to be respected.
We also shared Scottish heritage. My grandmother was Scottish, and I'm sure that was one of the things that Gordon tolerated about me as a young, naive person who would ask all sorts of questions that had probably been asked of Gordon a million times before. He was a member of the Manning branch, and that branch still exists today. On East Timor, he was a very strong advocate at a time when Labor's position was probably not as good as it should have been.
So I remember Gordon. I thank him for those early lessons that he afforded me and for the generosity that he allowed those of us who were new to the party. He accepted us with open arms, although I'm sure he often wondered where we came from and why we asked so many silly questions. But he was a man of principle. He was a great mentor. He was someone that you looked up to at a committee meeting or a party meeting because you always knew that Gordon had the line that you wished to aspire to.
So I offer my deep condolences on the passing of Gordon. Let there be many more Gordons who join the Labor Party and represent us with such great honour.
I rise, too, to make a contribution and pass on my condolences to the family of Gordon McIntosh, who was a well-known activist around Perth. But I actually rise to speak on behalf of some people in Timor-Leste. In particular, Mr Francisco da Carvalho has asked me, through a friend, to reflect on his support and on condolences passed on from him and his family, who remember former Senator McIntosh as a very important part of their resistance in Timor-Leste. So, with the indulgence of the Senate, I'm going to read what he has written and passed on to me through a very good friend of mine who is currently working in Timor-Leste. What he says is:
Gordon McIntosh was a hero of Timor-Leste. He was seen by Timorese as a highly-principled and tenacious supporter of East Timorese self-determination and independence since 1975. His passing has saddened many in Timor-Leste—as he gave many a glimmer of hope in tragic and tough times.
Gordon McIntosh challenged successive Australian Government support for the Indonesian military invasion and occupation. He was best known as Chair of the 1982-83 Senate Inquiry about East Timor, his counterpoint to former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam at the United Nations in 1982 and his membership of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia and East Timor in 1983.
In 1983 he went to Timor, as part of the first Australian parliamentary delegation to visit the then territory under occupation of Indonesia. After the trip, the Senator wrote a report denouncing the delegation's comments, describing the attempts of some to present Timor as no longer a significant political problem. His petition to the United Nations Decolonization Committee in 1982 was instrumental in keeping Timor on the list of territories with open decolonization processes, and his activities over many years made an important contribution to the Timorese cause.
In Timor Sen. McIntosh was affectionately known they used to call him "Ulun toos …" which directly translated means head strong—but it was his determination, stubbornness and 'discernment for not accepting the views of his Australian Parliament colleagues during his 1983 visit to the country—
which seems to have earned him this nickname
In 2014, he was awarded the Order of Timor-Leste … for his efforts in favour of Timor-Leste's independence.
Francisco da Carvalho is one of the founding fathers of the CVTL, the Red Cross Timor-Leste, and a veteran. He was a resistance leader during the invasion by Indonesia and met with Senator McIntosh in 1983. In 1981 Francisco was imprisoned on Atauro Island, just north of Dili. Francisco tells the story that Senator McIntosh came with a delegation from Australia to see for himself the conditions of political prisoners but had to be accompanied by the Indonesian military. Francisco and his fellow prisoners had a letter that they wanted to smuggle out to tell the world what was happening in East Timor. They didn't know what to do, as of course it was highly illegal and the Indonesian military were standing close by. Francisco finally took a deep breath, said a prayer and somehow shoved the letter into Gordon's hand. By luck, he was the right person to take the letter.
For nearly 10 years, Francisco was in prison on Atauro Island, in Indonesia and then in Dili. Once out of prison, he heard a lot about the work of then Senator McIntosh and about what he was doing for East Timor. Again, it gave him strength and hope throughout the following years. In 2016, former Senator McIntosh met with Francisco when in Dili, which was a joyful occasion. Gordon had given Francisco hope that somebody from the international community would listen to their plight—someone who understood the situation, who fought for East Timor. Francisco said that 'thank you' did not really describe what he wanted to say to Gordon and his family. He struggled with words and put his hand on his heart:
… it is much deeper than that. He supported us in such a terrible time; such a bad situation; and then he came back to see us.
Gordon McIntosh will not be forgotten in East Timor and will be forever remembered with great affection, admiration and respect. As the Timorese government said in their press release about former Senator McIntosh's passing:
In this moment of sadness, we mourn his death, but we celebrate his contribution.
I understand that Francisco also has photos that he would be very glad to pass on to Gordon's family. He was, as was so clearly articulated in Francisco's words, deeply loved and remembered, and I can pass on that as soon as they heard about his passing they sought to reach out to express their admiration and affection for all that he did for East Timor.
I rise humbly to associate myself with the remarks in the chamber this afternoon of other senators and pay my respects to the work of this marvellous man, Gordon McIntosh, in this place, in East Timor, on nuclear disarmament issues and as a proud member of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. I pass on my sincere condolences to his family and children. He was an important part of history in the Labor Party and in the union movement in Western Australia, being there at a time of union amalgamations, when the Australian Engineering Union amalgamated to become part of the new body, the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. Indeed, the branches that he was a member of were the very same branches that I was a member of. Although I was a generation just after Senator Sue Lines in becoming a member of the party, that legacy of activism is something that brought me to this place. Gordon McIntosh's work as a political activist combined trade unionism with industrial rights, with advocating for the industries that he supported, the industries that he was a part of. It combined with other passions, like human rights in Timor-Leste, anti French nuclear testing, nuclear disarmament, trade and the rights of working people, and it is truly a shining example to me and to many other people in the Labor Party and the labour movement of what our labour movement is about.
His vision was of a number of things. He said that union amalgamations were inevitable, and perhaps indeed they are, and he described a 35-hour working week was also inevitable—if only; I hope that is something we can wish for for the people of our nation. Indeed, I agree with his remarks where he once described the legislation proposed by the Fraser government that would have prevented the families of workers involved in strike action from receiving social service benefits as 'one foot on the ladder of fascism'. As senators in this place have highlighted, he was a man of deep values and deep principles that he stuck to until the end. I would very much like to associate myself with this condolence motion today.
I ask senators to join me in a moment of silence to signify assent to the motion.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
by leave—I table a document, a non-conforming petition, signed by over 1.4 million people, calling for the removal of Senator Fraser Anning from parliament after his despicable comments seeking to further demonise Muslims in the wake of the Christchurch massacre and, in fact, blaming the targets of this horrific terrorist attack for their own deaths.
Senator Faruqi, I understand leave has been granted for this non-conforming petition, but I do urge senators that when they table a petition it is not an opportunity to make a speech. There are other opportunities for that.
by leave—I table this non-conforming petition calling for ParentsNext to be made voluntary. It's signed by 39,305 people.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Hanson for today, 2 April, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Singh for today, 2 April, and tomorrow, 3 April, on account of parliamentary business.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on the proposal at the request of any senator. There being no requests, I will move on. I give advance notice that tomorrow I will likely move through motions in the order they appear on the Notice Paper, due to likely time constraints.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 17 December 2018 marked the 111th National Day of Bhutan;
(b) acknowledges the significance of this day of commemoration for the Bhutanese community who mark the occasion by reflecting on the profound sacrifices of their forefathers, and expressing gratitude to all who have worked for the wellbeing of their independent nation; and
(c) notes that the National Day of Bhutan commemoration is an annual opportunity for the Bhutanese people to reaffirm their pledge to uphold their civic responsibilities and serve their traditions and customs.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Singh, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 24 March 2019 is World Tuberculosis Day and marks the anniversary of German Nobel Laureate Dr Robert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes Tuberculosis (TB),
(ii) TB, including drug-resistant TB, has overtaken HIV and AIDS to become the infectious disease responsible for the most deaths globally,
(iii) in 2017 alone, 1.6 million people died from TB worldwide and 10 million people became sick with the disease,
(iv) large gaps in TB detection and treatment remain, with 4.1 million cases of active TB that were not diagnosed and treated in 2016, including 600,000 children,
(v) according to the World Health Organisation, in 2017, 62% of the world's new TB cases occurred in the Asia-Pacific region,
(vi) in 2016, Papua New Guinea (PNG) had one of the highest rates of TB infection in the Pacific, with an estimated 35,000 total cases, including 2,000 drug resistant cases,
(vii) Australia signed onto a new set of Global Goals for Sustainable Development, including a target to end the TB epidemic by 2030,
(viii) the theme for World TB Day 2019 is 'It's time....to keep the promise', and
(ix) the promises made by the global community at the United Nations High Level Meeting on TB, in September 2018, included a commitment by Australia to accelerate action towards ending TB as an epidemic through increased efforts and leadership on research and development, prevention, testing and treatment;
(b) recognises Australia's 3-year $220 million pledge to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (2017-19), which has supported TB testing and treatment to 17.4 million people since 2002, including over 8.2 million people in the lndo-Pacific region; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to renew its commitment to the Global Fund, in line with the requests to be made at the 6th replenishment conference on 10 October 2019, which aims to raise a further US$14 billion for 2020 to 2022.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Waters, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) North Queensland is being ravaged by floods, and Townsville received more than a year's worth of rain before the end of the first week of February 2019, and
(ii) the floods have been devastating for livestock, with more than 500,000 cattle estimated to have been killed, and another 150,000 in danger of starving to death; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth Government to:
(i) increase assistance to people affected by the Townsville floods, and to provide emergency assistance to save the lives of cattle that are currently starving, and
(ii) more effectively plan for animal welfare in natural disaster responses.
Question agreed to.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is providing extensive disaster relief to support communities across north-west Queensland affected by the recent monsoonal deluge. This support includes a $300 million commitment to support farmers to restock, replant and replace on-farm infrastructure and financial relief to individuals, families, communities and councils, such as the $75,000 payment to primary producers to assist with the clean-up of debris, salvaging crops, repairing plant equipment and the burial of carcasses. We've also delivered $1 million to 11 impacted regional councils to help them provide a range of local measures to ratepayers. This is in addition to the immediate support provided by the ADF to coordinate delivery of 43 tonnes of fodder and 42,000 litres of jet fuel. Any suggestion that producers failed to protect and care for their livestock in this natural disaster is plainly wrong. Graziers have been working tirelessly through a relentless drought to care for their herds and are now left utterly devastated and distraught by losing most if not all of their cattle.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The scale of the natural disaster in North Queensland is confronting. As someone who has visited the impacted areas numerous times in recent weeks, I know the recovery will be long and difficult. Labor stands with the Commonwealth and state governments in support of all those affected. We will support all initiatives taken to assist them in this time of need. However, there will need to be a review of current plans with regard to the impact of such devastating disasters post the immediate critical crisis response.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator McGrath, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the biannual Chinchilla Melon Festival, the world's largest such festival, is held this year from 14 February to 17 February;
(b) further notes that the festival brings tourists from across the nation to Chinchilla and the surrounds, which is a boon to the local economy, as well as serving to highlight the region's excellent agricultural produce;
(c) recognises the important role that festivals, such as the Chinchilla Melon Festival, play in sustaining remote, regional and rural communities through regional tourism; and
(d) congratulates the organisers of the Chinchilla Melon Festival on organising another tremendous event.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I note this is a coalition motion in favour of festivals but in New South Wales the coalition is crushing festivals through changes to liquor licensing laws.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1412 standing in my name, by omitting '1,486 cotton farms' from subparagraph (a)(ii), and substituting '1,436 cotton farms'.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the cotton industry is a largely family-owned and operated industry,
(ii) Cotton Australia states that, in 2017-18, there were 1,436 cotton farms in Australia, and 947, or 66%, are in New South Wales,
(iii) in 2017-18, more than 90% of cotton was exported with a value of $2.1 billion,
(iv) in 2017-18, cotton accounted for 5% of the gross value of agricultural production, or $2.8 billion, and is Australia's sixth largest agricultural export,
(v) the cotton industry helps to support more than 150 rural communities, and
(vi) Australian cotton maintains a global reputation for very high quality; and
(b) supports Australian cotton farmers and the cotton industry as a whole.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor supports Australian cotton growers and acknowledges the importance of the cotton industry both to the Australian economy and to all those who rely upon it for their livelihoods. However, it must also be acknowledged that recently the cotton industry has been the focus of media reports regarding allegations of misuse of water from the Murray-Darling Basin. It is important for the success of our future farming industries that the purpose of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was designed to restore the health of the river system, is maintained. The primary objective of government water policy must be to ensure environmental flows are restored and maintained. From there, it is for the market to determine where the water is allocated. As a high-value crop, cotton is well placed in this regard.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Centre Alliance has no beef with hardworking cotton farmers. However, we know that the Murray-Darling system is in crisis. We know that there's an overallocation of water, that the climate change science that backs the plan is flawed and that there are risks associated with the supply, constraints and efficiency measures and those risks are high. Yet we have ministers, both state and federal, and organisations such as Cotton Australia and the National Irrigators Council in denial about this. They want to maintain the status quo. They think the plan is the end, not the means to an end. Centre Alliance has moved a bill to ban the export of cotton. That's not an unusual thing. We banned the export of uranium. We are considering banning the export of live sheep. Changes are needed to the plan. Noting the resistance and difficulty in changing the plan, it is good for the federal parliament to have an option, albeit unpalatable, to save the river in the face of abstinence from vested interests.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1413 standing in my name for today, concerning an order for the production of documents relating to an arson incident. It's just the date that's in the motion.
Leave granted.
I amend the motion by omitting in paragraph (b) '18 February' and substituting '3 April'. I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes Coroner Michael Holmes has found the property at 91 Beardy Street in Armidale, the site later chosen for the premises of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, had been destroyed by fire on or around 16 September 2016 in an arson attack caused when an unknown person or persons poured petrol in the building and ignited it; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than noon on 3 April 2019:
(i) all internal departmental documents held by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and its agencies about the New South Wales Police investigation into arson at 91 Beardy Street, Armidale, and
(ii) any correspondence between the Department for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, or his office, about the New South Wales Police arson investigation.
Question agreed to.
I ask that the names of Senators Askew, Urquhart, Bilyk, Singh, Brown and Polley be added to general business notice of motion No. 1414, relating to the Tasmanian bushfires. I, and also on behalf of Senators Duniam, Abetz, Askew, Urquhart, Bilyk, Singh, Brown and Polley, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the hardship suffered by all Tasmanian communities affected by bushfires over the last two months, including the Huon Valley, Derwent Valley, West Coast, Central Highlands and North West communities,
(ii) the loss of homes, property and livelihoods, as well as the damage caused to approximately 200,000 hectares of land, including productive forests and also areas in the Wilderness World Heritage Area, and
(iii) the extraordinary resilience of our community and emergency service personnel in responding to these tragic circumstances;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) the Tasmanian Fire Service and all their personnel for the-professionalism and dedication they have shown in keeping Tasmanians safe,
(ii) the volunteer fire brigades who have sacrificed so much to protect their neighbours and put themselves in harm's way for their communities,
(iii) the Parks and Wildlife Service for their skill in protecting Tasmania's wilderness heritage values while battling extremely remote and difficult conditions, and
(iv) the thousands of Tasmanians and Australians who have contributed their time, money, resources and assistance to caring for the victims of the bushfires, including from interstate, and also international assistance; and
(c) resolves to continue supporting the state of Tasmania as the disaster moves from response to recovery through the formal Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements to get these families and communities back on their feet as they begin the process of rebuilding.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Aged Care Act 1997, and for related purposes. Aged Care Amendment (Resident Welfare and Provider Disclosure) Bill 2019.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill enacts modest but significantly beneficial provisions that will drive ongoing quality improvements for aged care residents and help consumers make informed choices.
This Bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to require Commonwealth-subsidised residential aged care providers to report on the number of falls and the number of medication errors suffered by residents each quarter, and for the Secretary to make this information public.
The Bill also amends the Aged Care Act to require approved providers to post any sanctions made against them on their website.
Sanctions against approved providers can mean there is an immediate or severe risk to the health, safety or wellbeing of residents, and it is self-evident that we need to make it simpler for families and care recipients to know about them when they arise. Providing this information on a provider's website, as well as the My Aged Care portal, will make this information easier to access for residents and families.
By also mandating disclosure of two key quality indicators - falls and medication errors - the Bill will help drive improvements at both a provider and a systemic level, to ensure fewer accidents and sentinel events in aged care facilities.
Residents in aged care facilities experience nearly five times more falls than people of the same age who live in their own home. Injury from falls is an ever-present hazard in an aged care facility, given the frailty and poor mobility of many aged care residents. However it is important we benchmark and monitor the prevalence of falls, as excessive rates can indicate negligence, issues with the safety, planning and layout of a facility, or inadequate staffing leading to residents getting around without sufficient assistance.
Research shows medication errors can indicate poor staffing ratios, in particular a lack of nursing staff, and insufficient or inappropriate staff training and procedures.
We can view reporting of these clinical indicators as the "canary in the coalmine" – high numbers would alert authorities and families that something is amiss with the type and level of care offered at a facility. This would be expected to trigger scrutiny and a suitable response to address the causes of these avoidable injuries.
A 2016 systematic review of medication errors in aged care residents, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, found medical errors leading to hospitalisation and death were common and involved 16–27 per cent of residents (across five studies included in the review).
In the United States, significant reform followed the 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine: To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. At the crux of the report was a push for mandatory reporting of medical errors on the basis that reporting errors is fundamental to preventing them.
We understand from evidence given by the Department of Health during Additional Estimates in February that the Aged Care Minister has already indicated he would like to make falls and medication errors part of National Aged Care Quality Indicator Program (QI Program).
The program recently became mandatory for all approved providers and requires all approved providers to collect and provide clinical quality indicator data to the Department of Health on three indicators - unplanned weight loss among residents, the use of physical restraints, and pressure injuries.
The introduction of the program followed a 2011 report by the Productivity Commission, Caring for Older Australians, that recommended qualitative and quantitative indicators be published at the service provider level as a means of improving provider accountability and informing consumer choice. It nominated prevalence of falls as one prospective indicator, alongside pressure ulcers, pain management, nutrition and hydration. At the time, the Productivity Commission noted that standards of care were more focussed on meeting minimum standards rather than on continuous quality improvement.
This Bill contains measures that complement the now-mandatory QI Program and other recent reforms, and which evidence shows are important in driving transparency and improvements in aged care.
We are currently at a cross-roads in aged care. Following the revelations of the neglect and abuse that occurred at Oakden nursing home in South Australia, governments have scrambled to understand and fix the systemic problems that allowed the failures and scandalous conditions at Oakden's Makk and McLeay wards to persist for so many years.
It has caused state and federal governments to go back to basics and re-evaluate current regulatory bodies, systems and procedures. Time will tell how effective various measures will be in driving improvements.
Without question, that work is nowhere near complete, and the current Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will no doubt lead to further significant reform.
The danger is in sitting on our hands until the Royal Commission delivers its final report in 2020, and failing to progress solutions and systems we know will work.
People in aged care facilities don't have the luxury of time.
The Aged Care Minister took three years to make the QI Program mandatory, after it was successfully piloted in 2015 and 2016 and then continued on a voluntary basis. We do not see the point in delaying further progress, especially given the Minister's support for mandatory disclosure of falls and medication errors, and given the fact approved providers are now required to engage in a continuous reporting scheme for three important indicators.
The amendments contained in this Bill are relatively modest, but the benefits to aged care residents are clear, and there is no need to delay until the Royal Commission hands down its final report in April 2020 to know that the provisions are welcome and necessary.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Brown will also sponsor this motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Brown, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in 2015, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that there were 164,000 Australians with an autism diagnosis and a prevalence rate of 2.8% for those aged between 5-14 years (around 81,000 children), though this does not reflect the large numbers of autistic adults who remain undiagnosed,
(ii) 85% of Australians have personal contact with an autistic person; despite this, only 29% of Australians believe they understand how to support autistic people, and only 4% of autistic people and their families agree that people in the community know how to support them,
(iii) 29% of all NDIS participants have a primary diagnosis of autism, representing the largest diagnostic cohort in the scheme, and
(iv) waiting times for diagnosis in the public system can be between 12 months to two years;
(b) further notes that:
(i) between 40% to 70% of autistic people experience a co-occurring mental health condition,
(ii) international studies have found that autistic people have a life expectancy between 20 and 36 years shorter than the general population,
(iii) in 2015, the unemployment rate for autistic people was 31.6%, which is three times the rate for all people with disability and almost six times the rate of people without a disability,
(iv) 35% of autistic students achieve Year 10 or below, compared with 17% of all students – only 6.5% have a Bachelor's degree or above, half the rate of all people with a disability, and
(v) autistic people and their families experience significant social isolation with 51.6% agreeing that they feel socially isolated and 39.3% agreeing that they sometimes feel unable to leave the house due to concerns about discriminatory or negative behaviours in the community;
(c) acknowledges that:
(i) across Europe, a number of countries have developed national autism plans,
(ii) analysis has found that European countries which have a national autism plan or strategy appear to bring about a positive impact and change for autistic people, and
(iii) the Victorian Government inquiry into services for people with autism spectrum disorder recommended the development of a National Autism Strategy, highlighting the benefits, including:
(A) increasing understanding of autism in the community, and
(B) creating a common set of aims for policy makers, service providers, departments and agencies, noting that many of the issues faced by autistic people cut across Commonwealth and state responsibilities;
(d) affirms that a National Autism Strategy would complement the current National Disability Agreement and National Disability Strategy by providing a much-needed cohort-specific response for autism; and
(e) encourages the Government to develop a National Autism Strategy, in partnership with autistic people and their families and carers, to determine a set of actions with measurable outcomes to improve the life outcomes of autistic people.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Faruqi, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) between September and October 2018, more than 20 cases of advanced silicosis had been found in Queensland,
(ii) by 26 November 2018, 53 young men, including 11 with progressive massive fibrosis, had been diagnosed with severe progressive silicosis following dust exposure from cutting artificial stone benchtops,
(iii) it is highly likely that many more will soon be detected,
(iv) at present, there is no known treatment that can arrest the progress of this disease,
(v) previous attempts have been made to raise this issue with the Government, but they have not taken action on it,
(vi) the majority of recommendations contained in the report of the Community Affairs References Committee into workplace exposure to toxic dust, received on 31 May 2006, have not been actioned, and
(vii) the only effective action against silicosis is preventing exposure to silica dust; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) fund an initiative to educate workers in at-risk occupations on the dust control measures used in their industry, including:
(A) independent monitoring of dust levels,
(B) training in the selection, maintenance and use of respirators, and
(C) use of measures to control airborne dust, including enforcing an immediate prohibition on dry-cutting techniques,
(ii) conduct comprehensive enforcement of hazardous substances regulations related to silica dust exposure, and
(iii) recognise the need for:
(A) qualified and competent occupational hygienists to be involved in the recognition, evaluation and control of silica exposures, and
(B) establishing a multi-disciplinary Institute of Occupational Health.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute
The Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations has written to all state and territory governments urging them to implement health screening programs in their jurisdictions for past and present workers in the engineered stone industry. In addition, Safe Work Australia has prioritised action to address the risks posed by dust exposure in the workplace, including in the engineered stone industry. This agency is developing strategies to raise awareness of the duties and control measures for minimising respiratory silica dust in the workplace. This includes strategies to raise awareness of control measures to eliminate and minimise risk from respiratory silica dust; prioritising occupational lung disease, including silicosis, in the Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022; and updating health monitoring guides for silica and developing campaigns to help educate those in the workplace.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I'll be supporting this motion, but I just note that it calls on the federal government to be funding the education of workers on these dust related risks. This should be funded by employers.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 15 February 2019 was the 77th anniversary of the Fall of Singapore, an event that was considered one of the greatest military defeats in the history of the British Empire;
(b) recognises the heroic role that thousands of Australian troops played in fighting to prevent the Fall of Singapore, alongside their British and Indian compatriots;
(c) further recognises that over 100,000 allied troops were taken as prisoners of war following the Fall of Singapore, including 15,000 Australians;
(d) notes the annual presence of the 2/10th Field Regiment Association of the 8th Division, AIF, at the Singapore Day Memorial Service, held this year on 17 February at Brisbane's Shrine of Remembrance;
(e) thanks the volunteers who dedicate their time to organise this event; and
(f) recognises and commemorates all men and women who have sacrificed, and continue to sacrifice, in service of this nation.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1991, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (A Fair Go for Age Pensioners) Bill 2019 will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to remove means testing for the Age Pension.
In doing so, it is simply giving a fair go to the millions of hardworking Australians who have struggled to put aside a small nest egg for their retirement.
Currently those who have worked hard all their lives and saved to help provide for themselves in old age are punished with a reduced pension, based upon their assets and other income, while those who have failed to make any provision for old age are rewarded with every benefit.
This is simply wrong, and that a so-called Liberal government would favour the lazy and the feckless over the hardworking and the thrifty shows just how much it has lost its way.
There is a great deal of confusion regarding the nature of the Age Pension, not least from the current government.
This Bill recognises that the Age Pension is not welfare to be considered in the same category as working age income replacement pensions and benefits, but is actually a de-facto national superannuation scheme which recipients have paid for themselves over their working lives in taxes.
The concept of the Age Pension as a national superannuation scheme dates from the immediate post-World War II period. In 1945, the Chifley government created a National Welfare Fund, paid for by a special tax, which was to provide working families with a pension on retirement. This fund was subsequently taken over by the Menzies government with the commitment that an Age Pension would be established to serve the same purpose, to be paid out of consolidated revenue.
Sir Robert Menzies himself said:
" The Liberal Party maintains that the Means Test is humiliating and a penalty for thrift. It contends that social benefits should be enjoyed by all. "
Sir Robert Menzies sought to offset the cost of ending the means test by introducing a contributory system, much as still occurs in the United Kingdom, once again aligning the Age Pension with the modern concept of superannuation.
In the United Kingdom, as in Singapore, the Age Pension system has a specific contributory component but has historically not been subject to means or assets tests, rewarding self-reliance.
The great Labor leaders of the 1940s, 50s and 60s all recognised that the means test was unfair, with Labor Leader Doc Evatt calling it "iniquitous" and committing to its abolition.
This was a position shared by the Liberal Party, whose then leader, Prime Minister McMahon went to the 1972 election promising to abolish the Age Pension means test for people over 65 within three years.
Even Whitlam, in a rare act of ideological clemency, matched the Liberals commitment and pledged to abolish the means test "within the life of the next parliament."
Uncharacteristically, Whitlam did make good at least in part on his promise, and abolished the means test for those over 70.
The current means testing, including both assets and income tests, was introduced by the Hawke Labor government in the 1983-84 budget as both as a cost savings measure and as a cave in to the hard left. This was publicly justified by claims that this "targeted assistance to those of greatest need," however it was in fact simply socialist wealth redistribution, taking money from those who had worked and saved to give it to those who hadn't.
Given that successive Liberal governments since the Hawke era have failed to repeal this iniquitous means test, this Bill seeks to remedy this injustice. This Bill will give effect to the original intent of Sir Robert Menzies and Ben Chifley that the Age Pension would provide a secure and dignified form of income support to all Australians in retirement and not simply a conditional trickle of welfare to be doled out as a last resort to those who applied cap in hand.
On passage, this Bill will give older Australians the confidence and security of a guaranteed universal basic income in old age. It will also provide an incentive for them to strive to additionally provide for their retirement and for their children's inheritance, safe in the knowledge that their hard work and shrewd investments will not be punished by discriminatory assessments of their entitlements.
This Bill is about restoring the promise given to hard working Australians, of honouring the implicit social contract that a working life of paying taxes would be rewarded by a modest but secure income in old age.
But most of all, this Bill is about re-affirming the ideological basis of the pension as a retirement social wage rather than socialist wealth redistribution, something that it might be expected that any genuine Liberal government would support.
On these grounds, I commend this Bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Asset Energy is planning to conduct further seismic testing for gas off the coast of Newcastle and the Central Coast in New South Wales,
(ii) seismic air gun blasting for offshore drilling creates underwater noise at extraordinarily high volumes, and it poses major risks to marine life of all sizes, including whales and dolphins,
(iii tourism and local fishing industries rely on healthy oceans and have the potential to be severely impacted by seismic testing and offshore fossil fuel rigs, and
(iv) the community is deeply opposed to this proposal and hundreds of people have rallied against it along the coast of New South Wales; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, by no later than 9.50 pm on 15 April 2019:
(i) all correspondence, advice and briefing notes prepared by or for the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia or the Minister for the Environment, regarding the Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 (also known as 'PEP 11') 'Baleen 20 HR Seismic Survey' approval, and
(ii) all correspondence, advice and briefing notes prepared by or for the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia or the Minister for the Environment, regarding the PEP 11 extension of term granted by the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) in January 2018, including but not limited to, correspondence with the New South Wales Government between November 2015 and June 2017.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Exploration for oil and gas in offshore New South Wales has been undertaken safely for 30 years. There are strict safety and environmental standards, and the industry is overseen by the independent expert regulator, NOPSEMA. Last week, the government further strengthened consultation and transparency requirements to ensure communities are fully consulted on offshore seismic plans. The large body of international and Australian scientific research shows that, when properly managed, seismic surveys can be conducted safely. Rather than unscientific bans, NOPSEMA relies on expert scientific evidence and will not allow any activity to proceed unless it's safe for the environment, the community and the workers.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Communities across the New South Wales coastline are rightly up in arms at the prospect of their beloved oceans, the marine life within and coastlines being damaged by seismic testing. They have come together to protect our precious environment and push for a sustainable future. Our oceans and all who thrive on their shores depend on this. Much of the testing is centred on Newcastle and the Central Coast. I have seen firsthand the passion of Novocastrians and these communities to protect their irreplaceable coast. To say that there has been a lack of transparency is an understatement. We need to see the documents that form the approval of PEP 11 and find out how this risky activity has been allowed to proceed.
The question is that motion No. 1391 be agreed to.
Senators, for the next handful of divisions I will be ringing the bells for one minute, so I urge you to stay in the chamber.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1400, standing in my name for today relating to the Adani Carmichael mine, in the terms circulated in the chamber.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) this year, Adani has confirmed it released contaminated water into the Caley Valley Wetlands from its Abbot Point Operations last week at twice the rate it is licensed for, earning it a $13,055 penalty infringement fine from the Queensland Department of Environment and Science,
(ii) this is the second time Adani has breached licence requirements at the site and exceeded pollution limits into the wetlands area,
(iii) the Queensland Government is prosecuting Adani for the first known contaminated water release, which occurred in 2017,
(iv) Adani Mining, as part of the Adani Group, has been investigated by the Department of the Environment and Energy for potential breach of its approval conditions for the Carmichael Mine, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EBPC Act), for unlawfully clearing vegetation and sinking groundwater dewatering bores,
(v) Adani Infrastructure, as part of the Adani Group, has applied for EPBC Act approval for a pipeline to bring water to the mine site for washing of the coal,
(vi) Adani donated $35,000 to the Liberal Party and $15,000 to One Nation in the 2017-18 financial year, and
(vii) opening up the Galilee Basin for the Adani Carmichael coal mine would release low quality thermal coal carbon emissions into the atmosphere, with catastrophic impacts on our climate, manifesting in heatwaves, storms, fires and floods of even greater magnitude than what we have seen this summer; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) return the $35,000 donation made by Adani to the Liberal Party,
(ii) review Adani's environmental approval under section 145 of the EPBC Act, based on new information, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2018 Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 °C, and the evidence of Adani's breaches of environmental law, both in Australia and overseas,
(iii) refuse to approve Adani's draft groundwater management plan,
(iv) refuse approval under the EPBC Act for the pipeline the mine requires, the North Galilee Water scheme,
(v) revoke all federal approvals for the Adani Carmichael mine, and not approve any new coal in Australia, and
(vi) apply caretaker conventions and seek Labor's assent to positions taken on the groundwater management plan and the pipeline the mine requires, and on whether to review and revoke the mine approval.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government notes that the Carmichael coal project has over 180 stringent conditions through state and Commonwealth approval processes. This motion raises matters that are regulated by the Queensland government such as water releases at the Abbot Point port. In addition, the Queensland government has acknowledged that no widespread environmental harm was caused as a result of previous discharge caused by weather events. It should be noted that the federal environment department found Adani had not breached conditions imposed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, following false accusations by green activists.
Mr President, my apologies, I actually couldn't hear any of that. Could I get a copy sent to me, please?
Okay. The question is that motion No. 1400 as amended be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in a February 2017 speech, 'Progressive politics in the age of Trump', NSW Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Mr Tim Ayers, who is also a member of the ALP's National Executive, supported the introduction of an inheritance tax,
(ii) in an address to the National Press Club on 15 March 2017, the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Richard Di Natale, stated "And speaking of levelling the playing field, if we are going to avoid turning this intergenerational divide into a chasm, it is time we had a debate around inheritance taxes for the super wealthy. Australia is one of the countries who does not tax pre-existing wealth',
(iii) in an article in New Matilda on 7 March 2006, Labor's Shadow Assistant Treasurer, MrAndrew Leigh, wrote an article entitled, Bring Back the Inheritance Tax, in which he stated "From a pure economic rationalist perspective ... what is often not recognised is that inheritance taxes are also an efficient form of revenue raising", and
(iv) farming families are especially disadvantaged by an inheritance tax, with much of the wealth of their farms tied up in land – this means that when heirs do have to pay inheritance taxes, there is often a need to sell-off land (or other assets to pay off the death tax; and
(b) rejects any introduction of an inheritance tax, which only serves to punish the hard work, risk-taking and success of families and individuals who have built small businesses and family farms.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This is not my first speech. This is a motion where the Nationals are calling for special treatment for farming families. The Liberal Democrats will never vote for an increase in taxation, but this call for special treatment for farming families is over the top. If there ever were an inheritance tax it should apply to all wealth, including the wealth of farming families. The Nationals do not represent all farmers. They just represent that subset of farmers who love special pleading and handouts. The Liberal Democrats represent farmers who are self-sufficient and efficient.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I understand that Senator O'Sullivan doesn't support an inheritance tax but, given his very admirable property portfolio, if there was an inheritance tax we could fund our dental care under Medicare plan, I'd suggest. The truth is that while we are not going to take inheritance tax to the next election we do support the principle of an inheritance tax. We don't think it should capture the family farm or indeed modest inheritances. But it is about chipping away at the dynastic wealth of the richest people in our society. And let's remember that nine out of 10 times they've inherited the wealth themselves; they don't do it on merit. Passing on unearned wealth from huge and wealthy estates entrenches economic disadvantage. So we do support the taxation of obscene unearned wealth to invest in the education and training of those not born into money, and that's why we oppose this motion.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the inherent conflict of interest present when animal welfare issues are regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (the Department),
(ii) that the Department inappropriately influenced the Review of the Regulatory Capability and Culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the Regulation of Live Animal Exports, also known as the 'Moss Review' report,
(iii) that the Department removed words that pointed to its failure in regulating the live export industry and warnings of the risks of corruption, and
(iv) that the Department further outright rejected some of Mr Moss' draft findings, including dismissing one of the review's conclusions on the Department's inability to address livestock mortality as "overly simplistic"; and
(b) condemns the Federal Government for interfering with the Moss Review.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The claims made in this motion are false. Mr Philip Moss himself has rejected any suggestion that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources influenced his report. In a clear public statement he said that he found no evidence of any corrupt conduct. Mr Moss has stated that, if he had found corrupt conduct, he would have said so in his report. The government has accepted the recommendations of the Moss report and is getting on with implementing a range of reforms recommended by Mr Moss to ensure a sustainable live export trade overseen by a capable and competent regulator.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Whilst Labor, too, has concerns as to how the department interacted with the Review of the regulatory capability and culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the regulation of live animal exports, undertaken by Mr Philip Moss, Labor cannot support the motion, because the criticism should be directed squarely at the former agriculture minister, the member for New England, and the Liberal-National government, who set out the culture for the department and dismantled processes to address the inherent challenges the department faces, both to promote live animal exports while also regulating live animal exports.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
My Senate motion late last year forced the government to release draft versions of the Moss review into the culture of the department of agriculture's regulation of live animal exports. Through this, we have found out that the department did everything in its power to try and weaken the report's recommendations. This is not a regulator interested in animal welfare. It is a regulator interested in defending the cruel live exports industry. Whilst the Moss review was quite rightly deeply critical of the department of agriculture as the regulator of live exports, their level of involvement, even down to the detail of suggesting track changes of the document, is deeply inappropriate. The rot starts at the top, with the minister and with this government. We know this is a government that has zero regard for animal welfare. It's time to ban live exports.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) with great concern, growing levels of homelessness amongst Australians, in particular the elderly,
(ii) long waiting lists for public housing, and
(iii) the priority afforded to so-called refugees in the provision of public accommodation; and
(b) calls on state and Federal Governments to give absolute priority in all publicly-funded accommodation to Australian citizens over recent arrivals.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor unequivocally opposes this motion, which seeks to sow division and discord in the community. Labor deplores racism and condemns the senator for his attempt to cynically exploit rising homelessness to further his hateful and divisive agenda. Labor is deeply concerned about rising levels of homelessness in Australia. We have a positive agenda to tackle rising homelessness. A Shorten Labor government will restore national leadership through the Council of Australian Governments by developing and implementing a plan to reduce homelessness. Labor will also appoint a dedicated federal housing and homelessness minister. A future Labor government will also make the largest federal investment in housing since the Second World War, building 250,000 new affordable rental homes over the next decade, in partnership with the community housing sector, for Australians on low and moderate incomes.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 9 January 2019, the Federal Government announced a plan to create a public register of child sex offenders,
(ii) the community wants, and rightly deserves, strengthened measures aimed at better protecting children from known child sex offenders, including access to a national child sex offender register, and
(iii) such a register would rely on states and territories feeding information into the national database, meaning the Commonwealth would need them to sign on to the scheme; and
(b) calls on:
(i) all state and territory governments to negotiate in good faith in the development of this public register, and
(ii) when legislated, federally and by states and territories, this policy should be known as 'Daniel's Law', in memory of Daniel Morcombe.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor acknowledge the sentiments driving this motion, including the tragic loss of Daniel Morcombe and the need for all children to be protected from child sex offenders. It was to further this objective that Labor in 2013 established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which made 409 recommendations for how to better protect our children. The royal commission did not recommend creating a publicly accessible national child sex offenders register as the Morrison government is calling for. Labor will be guided by the considered and detailed recommendations of the royal commission. We also note that several states have indicated that they have no interest in pursuing the proposal put forward by this divided and desperate government and referred to in this motion.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that under the previous Labor Government:
(i) 800 boats arrived illegally, carrying 50,000 illegal maritime arrivals, and
(ii) 1,200 human lives, including children, were tragically lost at sea;
(b) recognises the success of the Liberal-National Coalition Government's Operation Sovereign Borders, which has stopped the arrival of illegal maritime arrivals and ended the loss of life at sea;
(c) further recognises that under the Liberal-National Coalition Government integrity has been restored to Australia's migration programme and the refugee intake has been increased by more than 35%, making Australia one of the most generous resettlement programs in the world;
(d) notes that the current Labor Opposition has supported legislation that undermines the successful work of Operation Sovereign Borders; and
(e) notes the Liberal-National Coalition Government's commitment to keeping Australia's borders secure and its citizens safe.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that only 14 Australian-flagged trading vessels operate in this country,
(ii) that up to 80 Australian seafarers were sacked following the decision by BHP and Bluescope to remove the MV Mariloula and the MV Lowlands Brilliance from their iron ore route between Port Hedland and Port Kembla, replacing them with foreign-flagged vessels with exploited foreign crews getting paid as little as $2 an hour,
(iii) the ongoing failure of the Liberal-National Government to stand up for Australian seafarers and to support the Australian shipping industry, a situation that will be made worse by its Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 that could open up more domestic sea freight routes, including Bass Strait, to foreign-flagged ships and exploited foreign crews, and
(iv) that the continued failure of the Liberal-National Government to guarantee that Bass Strait shipping would not be impacted by its proposed legislative changes threatens the jobs of Tasmanian seafarers and leaves Tasmanian exporters at the mercy of decisions in overseas boardrooms; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) support Australian seafarers and the Australian shipping industry and abandon the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017, and
(ii) investigate the establishment of an Australian 'strategic merchant fleet' in areas of importance to the Tasmanian and Australian economy, such as the importation and distribution of liquid fuel, namely crude oil, aviation fuel and diesel, and quarantining the domestic sea freight task on Bass Strait as part of a 'strategic fleet'.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government understands how the termination of contracts for the MV Lowlands Brilliance and the MV Mariloula will affect Australian seafarers and their families. However, this is entirely a commercial decision by BHP and is not subject to government regulation. The Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 makes regulatory amendments intended to reduce regulatory burden on industry, make coastal shipping a more viable mode of transport and benefit the manufacturing, mining, agricultural and energy sectors. The amendments maintain protections for Australian freight vessels and pay and conditions of Australian seafarers.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This is not my first speech. This Labor motion criticises foreign ships carrying our exports and says exporters are worried about decisions made in foreign boardrooms. Our exporters want decisions to be made in foreign boardrooms and they want foreign ships because it makes it better for them and their jobs.
You're a tosser. You really are. You have no idea.
Senator Sterle, withdraw that.
I withdraw.
The question is that notice of motion No. 1416, moved by Senator Urquhart, be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the refresh of the Closing the Gap targets has not yet been completed, and
(ii) COAG has committed to ensuring that the design and implementation of the next phase of Closing the Gap is a true partnership;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) self-determination is key to closing the gap, and
(ii) a Voice to Parliament would be a historic step for self-determination, justice and healing for First Nations peoples;
(c) urges the Federal, state and territory Governments to work with First Nations peoples to deliver programs that are developed and controlled by and for First Nations peoples; and
(d) calls on all Australian Governments to support the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak bodies to progress a formal partnership with the Council of Australian Governments on Closing the Gap.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is committed to the Closing the Gap agenda and delivering better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Unlike the original Closing the Gap targets, the Refresh targets are being developed in genuine partnership with Indigenous Australians. Last week, a historic Joint Council on Closing the Gap meeting was held in Brisbane and it was co-chaired by a coalition of peak Indigenous organisations. This process will ensure we drive real change through the next phase of closing the gap.
I seek to split the vote, if possible.
Yes, Senator Spender. How would you like it to be put?
(a) and (b) separate from (c) and (d).
You intend to vote differently on those two?
Yes.
I will first put the question that clauses (a) and (b) of motion No. 1415 in the name of Senator Siewert be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I will now put the question that clauses (c) and (d) of motion No. 1415 in the name of Senator Siewert be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion 1422 standing in my name for today, relating to budget asks for Australian women, at the request of Labor, to delete some specific funding amounts for domestic violence and abortion before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended in the terms circulated in the chamber:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) today on Budget day, the women of Australia will be looking to their government to address economic inequality and women's financial security,
(ii) the gender pay gap is currently 14.6%, meaning women would have to work an extra 62 days per year to earn the same money as their male counterparts,
(iii) the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in Australia is older women,
(iv) one in two women fleeing domestic violence are turned away from refuges due to lack of beds,
(v) there is unmet need for legal advice and support for women due to underfunding of community legal centres,
(vi) one in three women retire with no superannuation, and those who do retire with superannuation do so with just over half the amount that men do,
(vii) women do most of the unpaid care work in society, estimated at more than 60%,
(viii) well over 50% of migrants to Australia are women, and they bear the cost of delays in family reunification processing, and
(ix) budget cuts made in 2014 to frontline domestic violence services have been compounded by continued underfunding; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government in tonight's Budget to:
(i) restore the Women's Budget Impact Statement, axed in 2014,
(ii) fully fund family and domestic violence services, by funding frontline crisis services and primary prevention,
(iii) commit to make abortion safe, accessible, legal and free,
(iv) address the housing and homelessness crisis for older women, by providing certainty of funding for transitional housing and crisis services,
(v) work to extend paid parental leave arrangements to a goal of twenty-six weeks with superannuation, and
(vi) increase foreign aid to improve global equality for women through Australia's international development program.
Mr President, I seek to split the question on everything up and to and including (b)(iv), with (b)(v) and (vi) to be taken separately.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government released information about the budget measures for women in budget fact sheets and initiated the Women's Economic Security Statement, which provides practical measures to support women. This government is making the single largest ever Commonwealth investment in combating domestic violence. This government is making parental leave pay more flexible so that families have choices and can make decisions about what works best for them. This government has established Australia as the global leader in gender equality and women's empowerment, advancing the rights of women and girls as a top priority across the aid program by delivering $1.3 billion in official development assistance in 2017-18 that targeted gender equality globally.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This is not my first speech. Whilst it is perfectly fine to make motions about various women's issues, it's important not to skirt around issues that affect men in particular and there are some issues here that are a bit odd. Yes, it is the case that there are a growing number of older women in homelessness, but it is important to note that a great majority of homeless people in Australia are men and that the issue is rising for men. Between 2011 and 2016, 41 out of 10,000 women were homeless, which is terrible. It stayed at that level between 2011 and 2016. For men, it was 54 out of 10,000 in 2011 and had risen to 58 out of 10,000 by 2016. So there are real issues here, but skirting around the even deeper issue for men in this society seems a bit odd. (Time expired)
Following the request from Senator Hinch, I'm going to put the question on all of clause (a)—that is, (a)(i) to (a)(ix)—and the first four parts of clause (b)—that is, clauses (b)(i), (b)(ii), (b)(iii) and (b)(iv).
Question agreed to.
I will now put the question on clauses (b)(v) and (b)(vi) separately.
Question agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1408 standing in my name for today, relating to hunger strikes and the persecution of Kurdish people in Turkey, be taken as a formal motion?
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is.
In lieu of suspension, I seek leave to make a short one-minute statement.
Leave granted.
Again the people of Australia are denied the opportunity to see where their political parties stand on an issue of great importance. What's going on at the moment in Turkey is that the Kurdish people have been let down time and time again. Today is almost the 150th day of Leyla Guven's hunger strike. Hundreds of Kurdish political prisoners and others are following her lead, both in Turkey and across Europe. Tragically, several political prisoners in Turkey and Kurdish activists in Germany have now died. All they're seeking is an end to Turkey's harsh and punitive treatment of Abdullah Ocalan. Many bodies, including the Council of Europe and the UK parliament, have called for a different approach and a negotiated solution for Turkey's longstanding dispute with the Kurdish people.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1409, relating to the Venezuelan interim President, be taken as formal.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is, so formality has been denied.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1417 standing in my name for today, relating to climate change and support for a green new deal, be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is. Formality has been denied.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Rice from moving a motion to provide for consideration of that motion.
Under the order adopted by the Senate, I now immediately put that motion to suspend standing orders without debate. The question is that standing orders be suspended to allow Senator Rice to have that motion dealt with in formal business.
That concludes the discovery of formal business. Senator Ruston was seeking the call before we dealt with that last matter, so I call Senator Ruston.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
In relation to notice of motion No. 1417, I make the following statement. Climate change is a global issue that requires a global solution and the government is committed to Australia playing its part in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. We have announced a $3.5 billion climate solutions plan—the largest single investment by Australia in emissions reduction. A new $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund will ensure that we meet our 2030 Paris commitments by supporting practical measures such as revegetation of degraded land, reducing waste, savanna burning and improving energy efficiency. And we will do this while growing the economy, creating jobs, protecting our environment and keeping power prices down.
I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
by leave—I move that senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Appropriations, Staffing and Security—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator O’Neill
Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Discharged—Senator Martin
Appointed—
Senator Askew
Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Economics Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Askew, Ciccone and Spender
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senator Molan
Appointed—
Senator Askew
Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Education and Employment References Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Askew, Ciccone and Spender
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Fair Dinkum Power—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Askew, Ciccone and Spender
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Askew, Ciccone and Spender
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Spender
House—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator O’Neill
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Askew, Ciccone and Spender
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender.
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Faruqi
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Duniam
Appointed—Senator Askew
Procedure—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator O’Neill
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Askew, Ciccone and Spender
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Spender
Selection of Bills—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator O’Neill.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present reports 447, 478 and 479. I also make a report by way of statement relating to the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2019-20 and the committee's decision on the appointment of the Independent Auditor. Each year, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider the draft budget estimates of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office and make recommendations to both houses of parliament. The committee takes this responsibility very seriously.
The respective acts of the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as well as the committee's own legislation, require each of these officers to provide to the committee all information that would assist the committee in making its recommendations to the parliament. I rise to fulfil this requirement and to make a statement on whether the committee considers that the proposed funding for these officers is sufficient to carry out their respective mandates.
The Australian National Audit Office has advised the committee that it is not seeking supplementation in the 2019-20 budget but has advised that the Australian National Audit Office expects to require new policy funding into the future. The Auditor-General has advised the committee that approval has been sought for an operating loss for the 2018-19 year by virtue of accessing the prior year unspent appropriations and to meet resourcing pressures.
The Australian National Audit Office operating loss amounts to $3.13 million plus depreciation of $1.46 million for an operating deficit of $4.6 million. This will be funded from the ANAO's accumulated reserves. The ANAO has estimated that its total ordinary annual appropriations from the government will be $69.8 million for 2019-20. The ANAO as advised that its transition to a new way of working will require a total investment of $13.2 million over two years, including capital investment of $11.9 million and $1.3 million in operating expenses for accommodation and IT related costs. The committee endorses the proposed budget for the ANAO in 2019-20 and thanks the Australian National Audit Office for the professionalism it continues to demonstrate in supporting public accountability and transparency.
The committee has been informed that the Parliamentary Budget Office has sought supplementation in the 2019-20 budget to continue to support the current level of its service to the parliament. The PBO's expenses for 2019-20 total $8.69 million and, if the funding proposal is approved, it will enable the PBO to maintain current staffing levels and invest in additional data resources, specialist advice and software over the forward estimates. The JCPAA has considered this request and wishes to convey to the parliament its support for the PBO's proposal and the confidence of the committee that this matter has been given full and proper consideration. In this context, the committee also wishes to again acknowledge the important work done by the PBO and highlight its contributions to both the parliament and the broader community in delivering independent and high-quality fiscal analysis and research.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I take this opportunity to emphasise the accountability of both the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office to this parliament. I have received advice from the clerks of both houses endorsing the committee's position that it is the responsibility of the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide the JCPAA with all the information necessary for the committee to consider their respective budget estimates. This enables the committee to fulfil its responsibility to appropriately advise the parliament on the budget submissions put forward by both agencies.
In conclusion, the committee will continue to closely monitor the work programs and draft budget estimates of both the PBO and the Australian National Audit Office. The committee is strongly of the view that, as independent authorities, the PBO and National Audit Office need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements in order to fulfil their obligations to the parliament. The committee looks forward to seeing details of the respective budgets announced in this evening's budget.
Finally, under the Auditor-General Act, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required to approve the appointment of a new Independent Auditor of the Australian National Audit Office. The Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act requires that the committee report its decision to the parliament. I can confirm to the parliament that the committee has approved the appointment of Ms Eileen Hoggett as Independent Auditor of the Australian National Audit Office. The Independent Auditor is appointed from outside of government to act on a part-time basis to serve as external auditor to the Audit Office. As KPMG's national partner in charge of external audit and chair of KPMG's audit committee, Ms Hoggett brings suitable experience to this important position and the JCPAA looks forward to seeing the results of her work.
While noting Ms Hoggett's experience and suitability for the role, the committee has communicated its view that, at the time of beginning the process of appointing the next Independent Auditor, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet explore ways to seek applicants for this position from a wider group of possible applications. The committee has also recommended that, at the next review of the Auditor-General Act, this matter be given closer examination. I seek leave to table my statement.
Leave granted.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today three 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 a letter has been received from Senator Siewert:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The impacts of climate change are ravaging Australia right now, yet the Liberal, National and Labor parties are intent on propping up coal.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Money talks, doesn't it, folks? Looking at the donation disclosures released on 1 February, we see that there has been $5 million donated in the last four years to the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the National Party by mining and resources companies. So is it any wonder that we have a virtually non-existent climate policy from the current government? And, sadly, yesterday we saw Labor release a climate policy that's basically the scraps of the Liberals' climate policy. Money talks. Interestingly, those same companies which are able to make very generous donations to the large parties to buy their way out of decent climate laws can also afford good accountants, because they have paid barely any tax. It's no wonder that people in the community are outraged by big corporations writing their own rules, when they can see that donations buy them outcomes, yet they don't even pay tax.
People want action on climate change. I'm from Queensland. We saw unprecedented bushfires late last year which wreaked havoc in central Queensland. We've also just seen devastating floods in Townsville, which had been stricken by drought for many years prior to that. People understand that we are changing the face of this planet with our profligacy. You need only look at the Great Barrier Reef and the fact that we have had two of the most severe bleaching episodes in back-to-back years, which have, as the scientists tell us, killed half of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef—which, incidentally, provides 64,000 people with a job. So we are talking about the future of our planet.
We're also talking about the future of our community here. Regional Queensland is crying out for jobs, and we hear that; we hear that loud and clear. What we also hear is Adani bragging to the share market that they're going to automate from pit to port. Both facts can't be true: they can't be providing jobs, which they admitted they massively exaggerated by a factor of 10, when, at the same time, they're telling their financial supporters—not that there are terribly many of those—that, actually, they're not going to create any jobs because they're going to automate. You won't hear those facts from either side of parliament, sadly.
Not only would there be no jobs created by this proposed new coalmine—flying in the face of all of the science, which says we can't take any additional coal being added to our system—but the massive water impacts of this proposed coalmine would wreak incredible havoc on that already devastated region. It is desperately unfair that this coalmining company and others would get free water when all of the other water users in that region are paying through the teeth for it. It is desperately unfair and, again, it just shows that the big corporates write their own rules. They don't comply with environmental laws and they write their own tax rules, and people are absolutely fed up with it. There's one possible piece of good news here, in that, when the election is called—and, frankly, it couldn't come soon enough, because Australians and the Greens are sick of this awful government and cannot wait to see the back of it—Adani's groundwater management plan will need, under the caretaker conventions, the Labor Party to say yea or nay to it. It will be interesting to finally see Labor have to take a position on Adani, in particular on the water impacts of this new proposed coalmine, because, I might say, they've been rather slippery up until this point in time on whether or not they actually want to see this proposal go ahead. Once we hit caretaker mode—and that might be very soon—we will find out. Acting Deputy President Hume, I see the clock has just reset somewhat bizarrely. Can I seek some clarification on how much time I've got left?
Yes, thank you. The speaking list has you down for four minutes and this clock was accidentally set for 10 minutes so it has been reset.
Have I just used all of my four minutes?
You've used your four minutes.
I have some gold in there, but I will do it at another time.
I'm not sure 'gold' would be how I would describe what we've missed out on from Senator Waters, but I'm sure we'll hear it another time.
Fool's gold.
Fool's gold—perhaps you are right, Senator Cameron. I think you're spot on. Democracy is a beautiful thing, and the people of Australia never get it wrong. That's why the Greens are in the minority, frankly. That's why they'll never form government unless they hop into bed with the Labor Party. I hope they don't get the opportunity to do that at the next election. This matter of public importance was proposed by Senator Siewert this morning:
The impacts of climate change are ravaging Australia right now, yet the Liberal, National and Labor parties are intent on propping up coal.
The Greens are so virtuous. They are the only ones who care about the environment, if you ask them. They're the only ones who do anything in the way of policy or lawmaking or practical initiatives to assist this country to manage its environment. They're the only ones who care. Just listen to them; it's what they say. It's complete bunkum, frankly.
Regarding donations, the point was made by Senator Waters, in her last contribution, that big coal, these awful companies that do all these nasty things, are buying their way through the lawmaking process. As Senator Williams pointed out, the biggest political donation in Australian history made to the Australian Greens was by none other than Graeme Wood who, jointly with one other ecoactivist in Tasmania, shut down the Tasmanian forest industry. That's how they bought their way through the legislative process. If we want to use terms like 'slippery', as was used in the last contribution by Senator Waters—she referred to members of this place and other political parties as 'slippery'—a prime example of being slippery is taking donations from people like Graeme Wood, who wished to shut down job-creating industries like the forestry industry in Tasmania.
Returning to this ridiculous MPI we're now debating, as I said, the Greens stand there, sanctimoniously, telling us they're the only ones who care and they're the only ones who'll save the environment, but they're like anyone else. They're politicians. Don't let them fool you. They want to win votes. They want to get in and exercise power because they believe, strangely and scarily enough, in the things that they say and those kooky policies that they run out there. They use misleading statements and paint an inaccurate picture for the people of Australia. It's all emotive. There are not many facts backing up what they say. I was listening to contributions earlier on today from one of Senator Waters's colleagues, Senator Whish-Wilson, who is from my state of Tasmania. He conflated all of these things that happened as a result of Adani and these nasty farmers in Queensland who've cleared land to make it more productive for agricultural purposes—
Senator Williams interjecting—
Food that we eat, Senator Williams—that's right. They conflate all of these things and put it all down to climate change and therefore we must shut down a whole heap of productive industries, shut down coal extractive industries and switch to completely renewable energy generation. Back here, in reality instead of la la land, where some of these policies are dreamt up, we know that's not sustainable and that's not reasonable.
We need to look at Tasmania as an example of what is happening when it comes to actual, practical, sustainable measures to generate energy in a way that is environmentally friendly. In Tasmania we have the Battery of the Nation proposal put forward by former Prime Minister Turnbull and supported by Prime Minister Scott Morrison. It's something the Tasmanian government is right behind. We've recently seen an announcement around the Battery of the Nation proposal and the Marinus interconnector link, the increased interconnectivity between Tasmania and mainland Australia, enabling Tasmania, when we generate more power, to sell it to the mainland—clean, renewable, base-load power from our hydro dams in Tasmania. It's been described as one of the biggest economic opportunities for Tasmania over the next 15 years and one of the biggest in history. It has the potential to drive massive development in renewable energy, including pumped hydro. We've got a number of wind farm projects, which I'll talk about a little later on, and solar farms, injecting up to $5 billion into the Tasmanian state economy and creating thousands of jobs, particularly where they're needed most—in regional Tasmania, regional centres in our state, not capital cities or larger population centres.
We've got to remember that Tasmania has a goal of being 100 per cent renewable energy generation based. That's because we've got reliable hydro power. It's something we've had for almost a century now and something we should be very, very proud of. The good news about this practical initiative, contrary to the ridiculous claims put in the MPI by the Australian Greens, who are all about emotive politics rather than facts, is that a Liberal government in Canberra, in conjunction with a Liberal government in Tasmania, is investing in renewable energy projects—projects that will bring down power prices in Tasmania. We invested $56 million in the Marinus Link, which, as I said before, will enable Tasmania to get more investment in renewable energy generation, something that wasn't mentioned by the Greens in their MPI or by Senator Waters in her contribution.
These are very exciting things and, I think, things that need to be brought to the attention of the Greens, who, as I said before, seem to be off in la-la land rather than focusing on what's happening in reality—actual projects, actual attempts to bring down our emissions and support for renewable energy projects. But it is important to look at where the Greens are about. They're not talking about, and there's no support for, these wonderful projects in Tasmania. I haven't heard a peep from any of my Tasmanian colleagues in the Australian Greens about what is happening. When it's all about clean, green energy, they're nowhere to be seen; but when it is about spruiking rubbish, lies about Adani and other entities like that, you hear them all the time.
Let's turn back the clock a little bit to comments made by former Greens leader and senator Bob Brown. He is the Messiah of the Green movement in Australia. People look to him for leadership in this strange world that is Australian Green politics. An article by Wayne Crawford in The Mercury says:
TASMANIA'S environmental lobby has expressed its preference for coal-fired thermal power generation over the construction of more hydro-power dams. The director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society—
which is far larger than just a Tasmanian organisation these days—
Dr Bob Brown—
later a senator and now a private citizen—
said yesterday that if there was to be a new power station, then coal-fired thermal was "the best centralised option we have."
He said that despite disgracefully misleading claims—that the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had made a whole range of misrepresentations about it—he stated:
… the conservation movement regarded a coal-tired thermal station as a "manifestly better" option than more dams.
That's quite the turnaround in recent times! But he was adamant. In an article in the same paper, the Hobart Mercury, dated 1 July 1980, it reported that Dr Brown had said that thermal power had nowhere near the same potential for destroying Tasmania's environment as hydro schemes did. We back, we support renewable schemes—things like hydro, which has generated thousands of jobs over a very long period of time in our state's proud history—as opposed to coal, which former senator Bob Brown backed at the time.
I'm disappointed my Tasmanian Green colleagues aren't here now. In Tasmania we do have a coalmine in the Fingal Valley, the Cornwall colliery. The people that work there are in a very small regional community. It is also the coal supplier for the Australian cement factory in Railton, north-western Tasmania, bordering the electorates of Lyons and Braddon. Again, it's an entity that employs many Tasmanians. I'd love Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson to join me. We'll go on a bit of a drive to the Fingal Valley and talk to the workers there about the Greens' insane desire to just shut up shop and close down the mine. Then we can go along the road, along the Bass Highway, to the cement factory and talk to the workers there about how they're going to have to find far more expensive sources of energy generation to make the product that they make there. I dare say that would lead to a loss of jobs and perhaps the closure of that facility, noting that it is difficult for us to sustain business entities like that in a place like Tasmania, which is geographically isolated.
There is a cost to this zany world of Australian Greens politics over here. They can go on with this amazing rhetoric about how awful the major parties are—as I said, thank God the Greens will always be in minority. That cost comes in the form of jobs, lost royalties to state and territory governments and the fact that many Australians rely on coal, amongst other generation types, for their energy—53,000 direct jobs, most of them in regional areas, a part of Australia the Greens do not care about. Coal sector royalties contributed $3.8 billion in revenue to the Queensland state budget and $1.8 billion to the New South Wales state budget. Our coal exports are growing and in 2018 were worth $66 billion to the Australian economy, a huge amount that would be ripped out if the policies of the Greens got off the ground. Let's note that 60 per cent of Australian energy is coal generated. Take that out of the market and it would be a disaster: higher prices, job losses and economic stagnation—madness!
Senator Duniam talks about madness, and I think that's quite appropriate for talking about climate change in the coalition. The madness that has dominated the coalition for over 10 years about climate change and coal-fired power stations is just a disgrace. The situation we now have is this hypocritical proposition from the Greens: 'The impacts of climate change are ravaging Australia right now'. We know that. Labor understand that. Yet it goes on to say, 'yet the Liberal, National and Labor parties are intent on propping up coal.' A purely political position adopted by the Greens! Hypocrisy just oozes out of them. In 2009 there was an opportunity to have a carbon pollution reduction scheme, but, because it didn't meet this pure standard that the Greens wanted, they voted with Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party to kill a price on carbon. It's crazy for them to stand up here. Phil Coorey in 28 June 2014 wrote this very interesting article about climate change, which said:
The only mainstream party never to have taken a risk, never to have put any skin in the game, and never to have lost a vote over it, is the Greens. Throughout the entire eight-year saga, they have chained themselves to the altar of policy purity and watched others suffer for their ideals.
The result is a big fat nothing.
… … …
Because they believed the CPRS to be inadequate, they voted it down twice. The second time was the day after Abbott knocked off Turnbull. Liberal senators Judith Troeth and Sue Boyce realising the need to establish a foothold for carbon pricing, crossed the floor to vote with Labor. The Greens helped the Coalition kill it.
That's the record of the Greens when it comes to climate change. They have absolutely nothing to be proud of. When we lost government, we produced a report on its implications and how it affected the Labor Party. The report said that dealing with the Greens caused great harm to both Labor and environmental policy objectives.
The raison d'etre for the Greens party over the last decade has been to attack, undermine and/or colonise the Labor Party's policies with an increasing ferocity in an attempt to win over one or two inner-city seats in Melbourne and Sydney. The effect has been that these policy objectives have themselves been undermined, attacked and turned into political footballs. Had the Greens supported the CPRS, Australia would have transitioned to a carbon pricing scheme years ago and with the support of the Australian public. Rather than seize this historical opportunity, harness the mood of the nation and build on the momentum the Greens party set in train a bitter and divisive political storm. I think if you cut this back to what it really means, it was the Greens' political stupidity, their political purity, their self-interest and, deep down, a lack of care for the environment. If they actually cared about the environment they would have done something about it.
I have said on many occasions in this place that I brought my family up on the back of coal. I worked at Liddell power station. It was a piece of crap back in 1973 when I started work there, and it's even worse now. There's absolutely no reason why we should be putting any public money into Liddell power station. But the hypocrisy of the Greens is absolutely huge. I looked after families in the Muswellbrook-Singleton area who relied on coal to bring their families up, but the reality is that coal, as a baseload proposition, is now not the modern way to produce power. That's the reality.
We hear lots of talk about coal. We heard Senator Duniam talk about the coal for the cement factory in Tasmania. The reality is, unless there is some new scientific revolution about how to produce either steel or cement without coking coal, we've got a problem. Coal will be around for a long time to come, producing coke, producing steel and producing cement. That's why you produce metalliferous coal, coking coal. There's a big difference between coking coal and steaming coal. Even the CFMEU understand that there is an issue with the long-term viability of steaming coal, and that's why we have indicated that we will take steps to reduce carbon pollution in this country. We will probably do it without the Greens support.
If the Greens continue to run this ideological purity, this nonsense that they talk about all of the time and use as an excuse not to deliver a decent scheme in this country, then my view is they will pay a big price for it in forthcoming elections. You can tell the Labor Party that you won't be supporting our policy, but that will have repercussions for the Greens in future elections. I think the public are over it. I won't be lectured by the Greens on climate change. I won't be lectured by the Greens on any issue where they are running ideological purity over common sense.
It's common sense to actually deal with this issue. Workers will be working producing coking coal for years to come. Steaming coal will decline. What we need to do is to make sure that we have the technology and the jobs to look after the workers in the Hunter Valley, in Queensland and in Victoria. I was in the Latrobe Valley last week, and the workers down there don't know how long their jobs are going to go. Good, working-class families are concerned about their future, and they're entitled to be. We need a government, a Labor government, who will look at ensuring that we have a modern industry in renewable energy in this country and provide opportunities for coalminers around the country. That won't be achievable if we continue to support the nonsense that the Greens spout about coal in this country. There is always going to be a need, unless there is a massive change, for coking coal in this country. I want to make sure that we have alternative jobs for workers in coalmining areas in this country. I don't want them to be treated the same as the workers in the Appalachians in the US, where they are thrown on the scrap heap and left to rely on nothing but a terrible social security system in the United States. We want to have new skills and new jobs, and only a Labor government will deliver that.
It's only Labor that understands these issues. The Greens patently do not. They are too busy carving each other up. They are too busy attacking each other. They are in chaos and disarray as a political party. You've only got to look at what they're doing. I wish they would, for once, consider what we need to do to actually change the situation in this country.
I remind senators that the Senate will suspend at 6.30.
This is not my first speech. Today we are debating a matter of public importance from the Greens criticising the coalition for propping up coal. This is a bit rich, because the coalition haven't made a decision yet. They are still in policy paralysis. They're not yet propping up coal; it might happen soon.
If they do end up propping up coal, it will probably just offset the fact we have policy that props up renewables. For two decades, we have had the Renewable Energy Target introduced by John Howard and ramped up by Labor. The Renewable Energy Target essentially involves providing renewable generators with whatever it takes to achieve a certain market share. These subsidies to renewable generators come, effectively, from non-renewable generators like coal-fired generators. That means that over the past 20 years, if you've contemplated investing in new capacity for coal-fired power, you've had a dagger hanging over your head. Who would ever invest in coal-fired power if the proposition is that you are liable to pay your competitor whatever it takes for your competitor to achieve a certain market share? You would have been crazy to invest in coal over the past two decades, because of the Renewable Energy Target. Unsurprisingly, we've seen next to no investment in new capacity in coal over the past two decades, and unsurprisingly, because of the lack of new capacity in coal, we've seen price rises, on average, of eight per cent over the past decade.
The best approach, of course, is not to prop up anything. If we didn't prop up renewables, of course, there'd be no question you wouldn't need to prop up coal. The Renewable Energy Target lasts till 2030. People say, 'Oh, it's winding down.' No, it's still in place till 2030. It should be abolished now. We still have the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which is providing grants just to renewable projects. It should be abolished now. Any commitment to technology neutrality should mean we abolish it now. Finally, there's the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which provides loans to uncommercial renewable projects. We should abolish it now.
Rarely do I agree with Senator Cameron, but I have to say I couldn't help but agree with him enthusiastically today when he said that hypocrisy just oozes out of the Greens political party. That is so obvious not only in relation to climate change but also in relation to just about everything. The Greens are the party of hypocrisy. The grand poobah of the Greens, the founder of their party, of course is on record, as Senator Duniam pointed out, as supporting coal-fired power. Yet the Greens continue to tell lies around the world about climate change and about coal. In the face of the facts, the Greens cannot accept the common sense, the actuality of the fact that Australia's export of coal actually helps reduce carbon emissions in that it lessens the reliance of the rest of the world on poorer-quality coal.
Now, I have to say, that's as far as I can go in praising Senator Cameron—although, did I detect, and did anyone else detect, a slight change from the Labor Party as we approach the election? That is the first time I have heard any Labor senator being so enthusiastic about the jobs of coal workers. We always talk about that. Particularly where I come from, in Northern Queensland, coal workers' jobs are vitally important to us, but they never seem to be for my Queensland Labor Party colleagues in the Senate; they don't seem to be interested in the jobs of workers in the mines in Central and North Queensland. But their state counterparts do rely on royalties from coal to keep the state budget afloat. As Senator Duniam mentioned, $3.8 billion goes from the coal industry into the coffers of the Queensland state government. Without those coal royalties, Queensland would be even broker than it is at the moment.
Yet the Labor Party people—and I appreciate that the Labor Party are a bit conflicted on this—when Mr Shorten's in the North, he likes Adani and coalmining, and when he's in Melbourne and Victoria, he's totally opposed. The poor old current member for Herbert, Ms O'Toole, doesn't quite know where she is. She doesn't want to support Adani, because that's a swear word in the Labor Party, I understand. But she's trying to pretend that she's interested in workers' jobs—and not just workers' jobs, but all of the small businesses in Townsville, Mackay and North Queensland generally, and Central Queensland, who make their living out of supporting the mining industry generally and the coalmining industry in particular.
Senator Cameron's change of heart is good to see. I hope that follows through. But of course we know we can never trust the Labor Party, and we understand their hypocrisy as well. I was in this parliament when the then Labor leader, hand on heart, three days before an election, gave this rolled-gold solid promise to the Australian people, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' And what was the first thing she did when she got into power? She introduced a carbon tax. That's what you can take from what Labor says. They too, I regret to say, are full of hypocrisy.
I desperately ask, in every one of these debates that we have: can someone—anyone—tell me what is wrong with this proposition? Nobody ever does, and I can guarantee that nobody in this debate today will. But tell me, anyone who's prepared: Australia emits less than 1.3 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. The Chief Scientist is on the record saying what everybody knows: that 1.3 per cent of carbon emissions, if you stopped it completely, would have absolutely no impact on the changing climate of the world. It's a matter of common sense, but the Chief Scientist actually said that on the record. And I ask people: why does Mr Shorten want to cut emissions by 50 per cent and the Greens want to cut them by 80 per cent, when if you cut them by 100 per cent it won't make any difference at all to the changing climate of the world? I accept the argument that Australia has to do its bit, and Australia does more than its bit. We are one of the few countries in the world that have met their Kyoto targets and that will meet their Paris targets. We are genuine when we enter into these agreements, whereas most other countries in the world aren't. So I ask someone to please explain it to me—I've been begging for this for the last 10 years, in fact—but no-one ever can, because there is not an answer.
We talk about renewables. I live in the Townsville region. My office is in Townsville. I live in Ayr. A couple of months ago, we had a period of about four weeks of rain in Townsville. Those who relied on solar energy for their power—sorry—had to turn on the grid electricity and go back to the coal-fired power to keep their lights on. This is one of the problems with wind and solar energy. When the wind stops and the sun disappears, where does your energy come from? It's got to come from a base-load power station, and in Australia at the moment that is principally coal-fired power stations.
I'm pleased that our state party and, I believe, the federal party are keen to promote a HELE coal-fired power station in Queensland. It's one that will use the latest technology, which will mean that emissions will be very, very limited but still much, much less than the alternative coal suppliers around the world. As Senator Williams continues to remind me, China has 103 coal-fired power stations. They are building 130 new coal-fired power stations as we speak. In India, they are building, as we speak, 70 coal-fired power stations. Australia has in total just 22. I repeat: China is building, as we speak, 130—and India, 70—to go with the 1,003 already in place in China, yet the Labor Party want to cut Australia's 1.3 per cent of emissions by something like 50 per cent, and the Greens want to make it 80 per cent. It is just ridiculous. It defies logic. It defies any common sense whatsoever.
People accuse me of being a climate change denier; I'm not. I'm the first one to say that the climate has been changing since records have been kept and even before records were kept, because anthropologists and geologists can work this out. We know that the climate has always changed. Once the world was covered in ice. Once there was a rainforest in the centre of Australia. Once there were dinosaurs everywhere. Clearly, the climate is changing. It has always been the case. We hear people getting up and saying, 'Yasi is the biggest cyclone that has ever hit Australia. That's because of coal-fired emissions.' 'Yasi is the biggest cyclone that has ever hit Australia'—and then they mention sotto voce—'since 1928.' 'The floods in Brisbane were the biggest we've ever had, all because of climate change! They're the biggest that they've ever been since 1933.' It's always: 'This is the hottest day we've ever had in Australia since records were kept'—since some date in relatively recent times.
For all the interjections you get from the Greens, please answer this. Don't just abuse; don't just accuse everyone who doesn't agree with your warped view on life of being idiots or climate deniers or whatever. Just answer the question—because you don't, you never have and I say you never will, because the facts are obvious. I look forward to the day when I'm in this Senate when someone can explain it to me. The Chief Scientist couldn't. The Greens never can. No-one in the Labor Party can. They always avoid the topic. They go on to some other abuse. This happens on Facebook. If you point out the facts, all you get is abuse from the trolls in the Labor Party and the Greens political party. This debate is about hypocrisy: the hypocrisy of the Greens and the Labor Party. (Time expired)
I'll just try and recover my composure. It's always great going after Senator Macdonald! I've been working, one way or another, on climate and environment policy since about the turn of the century. When you say it like that, it's quite a long time.
There's one observation that I always make if I'm talking to a group of people that are keen for change, that want to see change. It's this: in politics, whatever the issue, whatever reform you're prioritising, opportunities come and go. The window opens up for change. There's a moment when the public is ready to have the debate. You have to act at that time, because often—not always, but often—the window closes again. I was very active around 2006, when a very big window opened up. People might remember that Al Gore made a documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, about the human and biophysical costs of allowing climate change to go unchecked, and it caught the public's imagination. Australia was gripped by the millennium drought, and Sir Nicholas Stern issued his report. He described climate change as the biggest market failure the world has ever seen.
All across the country, here and globally, popular support for action accelerated. The Walk Against Warming saw 100,000 people turn out across the country. A Labor government was elected. It was elected with a mandate for action. My colleague Senator Cameron spoke earlier in this debate and reprised the sorry events, the folly of the Greens political party's decision-making in 2009, when they voted against a progressive government that sought action on climate. That was a golden opportunity for reform. It was a golden opportunity for reform not realised, and we have been condemned to years of inaction as a consequence of that decision, that failure to understand that an opportunity presented for reform and for action and that that opportunity failed to be taken. We can't allow an opportunity like that to come and go again, because I would put it to you that we're on the cusp of a moment like this again.
A record share of Australians accept the science of climate change. We can find anyone on the street to explain this to Senator Macdonald. Ipsos had a survey out in the last couple of days showing that 46 per cent of Australians now agree that climate change is entirely or mainly caused by human activity. That is the highest share since Ipsos started asking the question back in 2010. Another 33 per cent say climate change is partly caused by human activity. Sixty-five per cent of the people who answered the survey say that climate change is already affecting Australia, and it's not a challenge for the future; it's a challenge for today. These same people know that climate change is causing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and they know that the government isn't doing anything about it. They know that, because of the attitudes of people like Senator Macdonald, nothing has happened in six years. All that has ever happened is attempts, over and over again, to destroy those institutions put in place by Labor to effect change in the carbon intensity of our economy. The share of Australians that rate the federal government's management of climate change as 'fairly or very good' has fallen from 18 per cent, which was a pretty pathetic benchmark, to just 13 per cent in the past year. I tell you what: those in areas where people care about this can't be given much hope by having someone like Senator Macdonald come into this chamber and make the speech he just made. He rejects the science, he rejects the impacts of the science on assets like the Great Barrier Reef—and he's said it repeatedly in this place—and he rejects our obligation to act. He rejects the idea that we are part of an international community and that we have a responsibility to act.
On the Labor side, we know that people are hungry for action now, as they were 10 years ago. People are hungry for a response, and we will not let them down. In the last few days, my colleague Mr Butler laid out the approach that we will take. We will reduce pollution by 45 per cent by 2030. We'll have 50 per cent renewables by that time. We will have net zero pollution by 2050. We'll invest in renewable energy. We will slash power bills. We will support solar batteries. We will work with the industry to cut pollution by extending the safeguard mechanism that is there and extending the coverage of that mechanism. We know that trade-exposed industries will need assistance to adjust. We'll establish a $300 million strategic industries reserve fund to work with industry to implement solutions to reduce their emissions. We will cut pollution in the land sector, revitalising and reforming the Carbon Farming Initiative.
We want to see a revolution in our transport sector. We know that transport emissions are going up, and we also know that Australians are paying too much, spending too much on petrol at the bowser, because Australia's vehicle fleet is simply not efficient enough. People are paying more than they ought to for petrol. It is a direct hit on cost of living, and we will put in place policies to improve the fuel efficiency of the Australian fleet. We'll introduce vehicle emissions standards which are broadly consistent with the standards in the US, because we know that a transition of our vehicle fleet is essential. We'll electrify Australia's national road networks with a $100 million grant program to match industry as well as state and local government proposals to establish fast charging, and that will be critical in rural and regional Australia to make sure that electric vehicles can be used in those areas. We'll re-engage internationally, and we'll kickstart the hydrogen economy with a $1 billion plan.
The response to all of this from the Liberals has been predictable, but the response from the Greens political party will be deeply dispiriting to many people, because progressive Australians are hoping that perhaps the Greens politicians have learnt something from the past. In December this year, we will be coming up to a very important anniversary. It'll be 10 years since the Greens political party, here in this very chamber, teamed up with the most conservative forces in our political system to stop the CPRS. I've been looking through the Hansard from that day—those who voted aye and those who voted nay—and it's an extraordinary list. Scott Ludlam is listed just under Barnaby Joyce. Christine Milne is listed just after former Senator McGauran and just before Nick Minchin. Bob Brown's listed: he's there just after Brandis and just before Bushby. There has never been any serious public reflection on this period—never any apology for that decision by the Greens political party, which condemned Australia to a decade of inaction.
It leads us to today. In bringing forward this misleading matter of public importance today, all the worst aspects of the Greens political party are on display, just as they were in 2009: the same unwillingness to consider ideas other than their own; the same lack of interest in the hard work that is required to build a broad coalition across industry and community to gain support for difficult reform; the same lack of interest in the work required to speak to more than 10 per cent of the population, to actually speak to the majority of Australians rather than a narrow group of people who already agree with you; and the same naked determination to differentiate themselves from the Labor Party at any cost, even if it means crippling prospects for real environmental reform. It is depressing indeed to see these tawdry motivations so obviously on display today.
I opened my remarks talking about windows for change, the way they open and the way they close. In the coming months, all Australians will be asked to make a decision about the next government, and Labor will be seeking a mandate from Australians to take serious action on climate change. We'll be seeking a mandate for a bold transition, and we'll do so knowing what it will really take to do that in a way that secures the livelihoods of the communities that will be affected and knowing what is required to truly ensure that our industries transition and thrive in the new economy. The truth is the only way to get a government that will take action on climate is to vote Labor.
Senator McKim, you've got about 30 seconds.
In recent times, apocalyptic scenes have dominated our news. In Tasmania, communities have been threatened and our World Heritage wilderness devastated by terrible bushfires made more likely and more dangerous by climate change. We've seen those terrible, awful floods in Queensland and a million dead fish floating in a parched Murray-Darling. This is only the beginning unless we get serious, and you cannot get serious on climate change unless you get serious on coal. But the major parties won't get serious. (Time expired)
Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 20:30
I table the budget statement for 2019-20 and other documents as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Budget speech 2019-20—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Frydenberg), dated 2 April 2019.
Budget papers—
No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook
No. 2—Budget measures
No. 3—Federal financial relations
No. 4—Agency resourcing
Ministerial statement—Building stronger regional communities 2019-20 Two complete sets of the above documents have been delivered to senators' suites. List circulated 2 April 2019
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the documents.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the budget statement and documents.
Debate adjourned.
I table particulars of proposed and certain expenditure for 2019-20. I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the documents be referred to legislation committees for the consideration of the estimates.
Question agreed to.
I table the portfolio budget statements for 2019-20 for the Department of the Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Copies are also available from the Senate Table Office.
I table portfolio budget statements for 2019-20 for portfolio and executive departments as listed in the Dynamic Red. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.
Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio.
Attorney-General's portfolio.
Communications and the Arts portfolio.
Defence portfolio.
Department of Human Services.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Department of Jobs and Small Business.
Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Education and Training portfolio.
Environment and Energy portfolio.
Finance portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
Health portfolio.
Home Affairs portfolio.
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Social Services portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
I present all reports and documents listed at items 17, 18 and 22 on today's order of business, an additional dissenting report and, on behalf of the minister, a correction to a government response.
I move:
That the Senate adopt the 176th report of the Standing Committee on Privileges.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to have tabling statements relating to reports incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Statements unavailable at the time of publishing
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
GOVERNOR-GENERAL AMENDMENT (SALARY) BILL 2019
This bill will set the salary of the next Governor-General.
The Governor-General is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister and under the provisions of the Letters Patent relating to the Office. On 16 December 2018, the Prime Minister announced that The Queen had approved his recommendation to appoint His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) as our next Governor-General following the retirement of His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd).
General Hurley will be sworn in as Governor-General in June 2019. Section 3 of the Constitution prevents the Governor-General's salary from being altered during their term of office. As such, the salary must be set prior to the appointment of General Hurley as Governor-General in June 2019.
Although the Governor-General serves at The Queen's pleasure, it is usual to serve for approximately five years. As such, it is necessary to set the next Governor-General's salary at a level appropriate for the duration of this term.
It has been long-standing practice to set the Governor-General's salary by reference to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The proposed salary is based on a forecast of the Chief Justice's salary over the next five years using wages growth projections. I note that the Chief Justice's salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal, a body that is independent of government.
In setting an appropriate salary, the Governor-General Designate requested that regard be given to the Commonwealth-funded military pension he will be entitled to receive during his term in office. This is consistent with precedent established by Sir William Deane in 1995 and continued most recently by General Cosgrove.
The proposed salary of $495,000 per annum reflects a reduction by the amount of General Hurley's military pension.
I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (MAKING SURE FOREIGN INVESTORS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAX IN AUSTRALIA AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2018
This Bill implements measures announced by the Government to protect the integrity of Australia's corporate tax system.
Most taxpayers comply with Australia's tax rules and pay their fair share of tax here.
However, some foreign investors have been using complex arrangements known as stapled structures and other broader tax concessions to extract profits from Australian businesses almost tax-free.
This is done by converting trading income into more favourably taxed passive income in land-rich sectors such as infrastructure.
Combined with existing tax concessions for foreign pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, some foreign investors can achieve tax rates well below 15 per cent on their Australian business income - in some cases, almost tax-free.
These tax benefits are only available to foreign investors and place Australian investors and businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Because these concessions are only available to foreign investors, it results in a two-tiered tax system that distorts investment decisions and biases investment towards land rich industries.
Staples and these broad tax concessions pose serious threats to the integrity of Australia's corporate tax system. Use of staples has spread in industries such as infrastructure, property, renewable energy and agriculture. Meanwhile, access to a concessional withholding tax rate for foreign investors has spread much further than ever intended, especially in the agricultural and residential housing sectors.
Hundreds of millions in revenue is being forgone. Left as is this could grow to be in the order of billions of dollars.
Australia has some of the strongest taxation integrity rules in the world. The Government has already introduced a raft of key initiatives, such as the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law, the Diverted Profits Tax, and Country-by-Country reporting.
The measures in this Bill build on the Government's work in protecting the integrity of Australia's corporate tax system.
It is important that everyone pays their fair share of tax to ensure the Government is able to fund the vital infrastructure and services that Australians deserve.
The Bill neutralises the tax benefits delivered by staples by ensuring active business income is taxed at the top corporate rate.
The Government's intention in introducing this package is clear - active income that is converted to passive income should not have access to concessional rates. The Australian Taxation Office will closely monitor this area to ensure that this is the case and will take strong action if necessary. Consistent with the Australian Taxation Office's taxpayer alert, the Government expects that our anti-avoidance tax laws, known as Part IVA of the tax legislation, will continue to apply to egregious tax-driven arrangements such as royalty staples.
The Bill introduced today delivers on our promise to protect the integrity of the Australian corporate tax system and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent prudently.
Schedule 1 to this Bill ensures that trading income that is converted to passive income via a stapled structure, and income from agricultural land and residential housing (other than affordable housing) will be taxed at the corporate tax rate.
It neutralises the tax benefits of stapled structures and prevents trading businesses from accessing a 15 per cent tax rate on active business income distributed to foreign investors. It also ensures that foreigners that invest in Australian agricultural and residential property don't get a tax advantage over domestic investors.
The Government recognises that there are some sectors where incentives are justified to attract foreign investment in the Australian economy.
Accordingly, a 15 year exception is available from this element of the package for new, Government-approved nationally significant infrastructure staples.
Support is also provided to improve housing affordability by encouraging foreign investment into affordable rental housing.
Schedule 1 will apply from 1 July 2019.
To manage the impact on existing investments, transitional arrangements are available for existing staples of seven years (for ordinary business staples) and 15 years (for economic infrastructure assets). Managed investment trusts investing in residential housing will have access to a transitional arrangement until 1 October 2027.
Schedule 2 amends the thin capitalisation rules to prevent foreign investors from using 'double gearing' structures to convert their active business income to interest income (which is taxed at 10 per cent or less).
These structures undermine our thin capitalisation limits. They use layers of trusts or partnerships to convert equity to debt, resulting in overall gearing levels in excess of the thin capitalisation limits. The changes will group together these structures so they cannot double gear their investments.
Schedule 2 would apply to income years commencing on or after 1 July 2018 with no transitional period as the amendments close a clear technical loophole in the law.
Schedule 3 and 4 limit the existing tax exemptions for foreign pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. Australia's current tax exemptions in these areas are too generous.
Most countries do not provide reciprocity through such broad tax concessions. This means that foreign sovereign investors and foreign pension funds generally receive a much greater benefit when they invest in Australia than we receive when our sovereign wealth funds and super funds invest in other countries.
Schedules 3 and 4 will limit these exemptions to passive income and portfolio investments only – typically interests of less than 10 per cent. These changes will take effect from 1 July 2019.
A seven-year transition period will be available for existing investments held by foreign pension funds, and foreign government investors that held a valid ruling on 27 March 2018 in respect of their investment.
The Bill is estimated to have a gain to revenue of $400 million over the forward estimates period. Moreover, the package protects the revenue base going forward.
These measures have been carefully developed through extensive consultation with industry groups, businesses and state governments throughout 2017 and 2018.
Together, the measures being implemented by this Bill strengthen and protect the integrity of Australia's corporate tax base.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
by leave—I move:
That the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019 and the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2018 and a related bill be taken together for their remaining stages.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
TREATMENT BENEFITS (SPECIAL ACCESS) BILL 2019
I am pleased to introduce the Treatment Benefits (Special Access)Bill 2019. The Bill will provide medical treatment to eligible members of Australian Civilian Surgical and Medical teams who worked in South Vietnam from October 1964 to December 1972 under the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program.
During the Vietnam War Australian Civilian Surgical and Medical teams were engaged by the then Department of External Affairs to provide medical aid, training and treatment to local Vietnamese people in South Vietnam as part of Australia's contribution to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program.
This measure was to be introduced in 2020, however, Australian Civilian Surgical and Medical team members raised concerns that waiting another 18 months was not ideal for an ageing group, some of whom have serious health issues.
This Government has listened to these concerns. We are committed to ensuring this small group can access medical treatment as and when they need it, and so we have decided to bring forward this measure to 1 July 2019.
The Bill recognises the fact that Civilian Surgical and Medical teams working in South Vietnam had a unique role in working for the Australian Government in a conflict zone where they were exposed to hazards and dangers.
The Bill also recognises that the teams provided invaluable aid to Vietnamese citizens, often in difficult and traumatic circumstances.
This Bill will provide eligible Civilian Surgical and Medical team members with access to medical treatment through a DVA Gold Card.
DVA is aware of approximately 200 surviving members of Civilian Surgical and Medical teams that will benefit from this Bill.
Civilian Surgical and Medical team members can already receive compensation and treatment for medical conditions related to their employment in South Vietnam under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 administered by Comcare.
The Bill would increase the level of medical assistance available to Civilian Surgical and Medical team members by extending medical treatment to any injury or disease including those unrelated to their work performed in South Vietnam.
Civilian Surgical and Medical team members will also be eligible to receive a pharmaceutical supplement and payment for travel costs related to receiving medical treatment.
This Bill will mean improved range and access to medical treatment for Civilian Surgical and Medical team members as and when they need it.
I commend this Bill.
TREATMENT BENEFITS (SPECIAL ACCESS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2019
I am pleased to introduce the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. The Bill will provide transitional and consequential provisions for the purposes of the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Act 2019.
The Bill will make necessary amendments to related Acts, to ensure that Civilian Surgical and Medical team members will be able to receive medical treatment and pharmaceutical supplement resulting from their eligibility under the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Act 2019.
The Bill will also ensure that members of Civilian Surgical and Medical teams will be exempt from paying income tax on payments made to them, under Part 3 of the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Act 2019, fortravelling expenses and payments of the pharmaceutical supplement under Part 4 of that Act.
The Bill contains transitional provisions which will ensure that Civilian Surgical and Medical team members eligible for medical treatment under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 will not be left without the ability to access medical treatment while transitioning to receive treatment under the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Act 2019.
I commend this Bill.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
FUTURE DROUGHT FUND BILL 2018 SECOND READING SPEECH
The Liberal-National Government is focused on helping farmers and communities prepare for inevitable future droughts.
The Future Drought Fund is a long-term investment to build drought resilience, including preparedness and recovery in our most drought affected communities. It will enable farmers and their communities to fulfil their potential as productive and profitable contributors to the Australian economy by improving the performance of the agriculture sector.
Healthy farming landscapes with innovative farming techniques will contribute to a drought resilient and sustainable agriculture sector. The Future Drought Fund will be available to support research, development and innovation. It will also deliver infrastructure projects, promote the adoption of technology and support improved environmental and natural resource management to encourage sustainable agricultural practices. The Future Drought Fund will provide farm and community support with the aim of bolstering drought resilience.
This Bill establishes the Future Drought Fund and provides an initial credit of $3.9 billion. The Government intends to grow the Fund until it reaches $5 billion, while at the same time drawing down $100 million per year from 1 July 2020 to invest in important drought resilience projects. The establishment of the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable revenue stream to build drought resilience across Australia into the future.
This funding is additional to the significant funding already available to assist farmers during an existing drought and will not replace existing funding.
The Future Drought Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the Government and maximising returns over the long-term.
The Bill requires the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and the Public Service to issue directions setting out the Government's expectations as to how the Fund will be managed and invested by the Board, including setting a benchmark return for earnings. In setting the benchmark rate of return, the Government will consider the objectives to grow the fund to around $5 billion and make annual payments to the Agriculture Future Drought Resilience Special Account of $100 million per year for disbursement to drought resilience projects.
The Government will develop and publish the Drought Resilience Funding Plan to ensure that a coherent and consistent approach is undertaken when considering and providing funding for drought resilience projects. The Funding Plan will be informed though public consultation and will be reviewed every four years to ensure that emerging priorities are appropriately captured in ensuring the Fund remains future-focussed. In developing the Plan, the Agriculture Minister will have regard to the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform and any successive agreements, as well as any related Government drought policies and strategies.
To ensure consistency with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan, the Minister is required to seek advice from the Regional Investment Corporation Board on any grant or funding arrangement. This advice will inform how the new drought resilience funding is allocated in each budget cycle.
Drought is a constant factor in Australian agriculture and the establishment of the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable funding stream for drought resilience into the future to ensure the potential of this vibrant industry is realised through drought resilience planning.
The Government had intended to use the Building Australia Fund to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, however, as we already confirmed earlier this year, we have secured the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and ensured that it is fully funded through our better economic and fiscal management, which has delivered a strong and improving budget position. This means that we are able to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme without persisting with the Medicare levy increase or the previous Building Australia Fund measure.
This is why we are now in a position to give our guarantee to Australians living with a disability, and their families and carers, that all planned expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be able to be met in this year's Budget and beyond.
Helping our farming communities face the challenges of drought is a key focus of this Government and because we have fully funded the NDIS, we are in a position to now use the uncommitted funds from the Building Australia Fund to build a sustainable source of funding for drought resilience, preparedness and recovery across Australia.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2018-19
SECOND READING SPEECH
Today, the Government introduces the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills. These Bills are:
These Bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018 -2019 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $2.5 billion. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs, for instance changes in costs for demand-driven programs.
I now outline the more significant amounts provided for in this Bill.
First, this Bill would provide the Department of Health with more than $626 million, including support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought.
Second, this Bill would provide the Department of Home Affairs with almost $600 million, including funding for national security, provision of refugee and humanitarian assistance, and investment in critical national capabilities to enhance Australia's natural disaster preparedness.
Third, this Bill will provide $100.5 million to the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, including assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought.
Fourth, this Bill will provide $89.8 million to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, including assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought.
Further, this Bill would provide the Attorney-General's Department with $60 million, including support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The Royal Commission will primarily look at the quality and safety of care provided in Residential and Home Aged Care to senior Australians and young Australians with disabilities living in Residential Aged Care settings.
The Bill would also provide, the Australian Sports Commission with just over $60 million, which includes $30 million to expand the Community Sport Infrastructure Program to provide a greater number of grants for the community sporting facilities, $2 million to fund the development of a detailed business case on options for the future of the Australian Institute of Sport site and $25 million to support athletes preparing for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics.
The Bill will also provide, the National Gallery of Australia with over $14 million to continue to safeguard and exhibit its collection of artworks.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements tabled in the Parliament.
I commend this Bill to the chamber.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2018-19
SECOND READING SPEECH
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018 -2019, along with Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2018-2019, which was introduced earlier, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.2) 2018-2019, are the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills for this financial year.
This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $752.9 million. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs.
I now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill.
First, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive $82 million mainly for critical enhancements to the security infrastructure of Australia's overseas diplomatic network.
Second, this Bill would provide the Department of Human Services with just over $40.6 million to bring forward investment in capital infrastructure from Tranche Four of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program, which is progressively replacing Centrelink's ageing technology platform.
Third, the Department of Home Affairs will receive approximately $28 million mainly for the design and initial procurement of next generation visa processing systems.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule 1 to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimate Statements tabled in the Parliament.
I commend this Bill.
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 2) 2018-2019
The purpose of Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill(No. 2) 2018-2019 is to provide additional funding for the operations of the Parliamentary Departments.
This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $4.3 million. Of this amount,
$3.25 million is available for the implementation of electronic voting for divisions in the House of Representatives, should the parliament decide to support that initiative. If this progresses, this will increase the efficiency, transparency and accuracy of the voting process. Another $1 million will be received to maintain the electronic-security infrastructure of the Australian Parliament House.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Department of Parliamentary Services Additional Estimates Statements tabled in Parliament.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
SUPPLY BILL (NO. 1) 2019-2020
Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, together with Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, seeks appropriations to facilitate the continuation of normal government business.
Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 provides for appropriations for proposed expenditure on the ordinary annual services of the government for the first five months of 2019-20.
The Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $40.8 billion.
The appropriations proposed in this Bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and
Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills.
Although Supply Bills can sometimes include front-loading for agencies that have uneven spending needs over the year, this is not the case in 2019. The five twelfths apportionment has therefore been applied strictly to all agencies.
The Supply Bills also take into account terminating programs.
The remainder of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations are contained in the Budget Appropriations Bills, which will be introduced separately. To support Parliamentary scrutiny, the effect of both the Supply Bills and Budget Appropriation Bills is incorporated in the 2019-20 Portfolio Budget Statements, as was the case for the 2016-17 Supply Bills.
The Bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.
I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks provision only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until Budget Appropriation Bills have passed. Consistent with convention, the Supply Bills do not include funding for Budget measures.
This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, or a similar bill, to be passed by the next Parliament, if necessary.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the Bill and the Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in relation to the Budget Appropriation Bills.
SUPPLY BILL (NO. 2) 2019-2020
Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, along with Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, seeks appropriations to facilitate the continuation of normal government business.
Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 provides for appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government, such as for capital works, for services and payments to states, territories and local governments, for the first five months of 2019-20.
This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $4.8 billion.
The appropriations proposed in this Bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills.
The Supply Bills also take into account terminating programs.
The Bill also establishes the debit limits for 2019-20 for general purpose financial assistance payments and national partnership payments. The debit limits in the Bill reflect five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 debit limit, with the remaining seven-twelfths to be included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020.
The Bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.
As with Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, this bill seeks provision only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until Budget Appropriation Bills have passed.
This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, or a similar bill, to be passed by the next Parliament, if necessary.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the Bill and the Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in Parliament with Budget Appropriation Bills.
SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2019-2020
Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 provides appropriations for 2019-20 for the operations of:
This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $101 million for Parliamentary expenditure for the first part of 2019-20, broadly until the end of November.
The appropriations proposed in this Bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills.
Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to Parliamentary Departments from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of Parliament's operations.
As with the other Supply Bills, I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks provision only to appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until Budget Appropriation Bills have passed. And consistent with convention, Supply Bills do not include Budget Measure funding.
This arrangement allows for Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, or a similar bill, to be passed in 2019-20 by the next parliament if necessary.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in Parliament with the Budget Appropriation Bills.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the constituents in the electorate of Dickson, one of my duty electorates. I was very pleased to accept a petition signed by 1,600 residents and have tabled the Samford Valley Districts NBN petition in this place. I've spoken recently in this place about the difficulties experienced by the Samford Valley Districts residents with the NBN. I'm pleased to say that the residents are taking action. Local residents from the Samford Valley Districts area, postcode 4520, are represented by two advocacy groups: Samford & Districts Progress & Protection Association, and the Samford NBN Advocacy Group, led by local resident Mr Sean Ferguson. The suburbs affected at the 4520 postcode include Wights Mountain, Yugar, Samford Village, Samsonvale, Samford, Samford Valley, Mount Glorious, Kobble Creek, Mount Samson, Mount Nebo, Enoggera Reservoir, Draper, Jollys Lookout, Highvale, Camp Mountain, Armstrong Creek, Closeburn and Cedar Creek.
The group has met with me; Michelle Rowland, the shadow minister for communications; and Ms Ali France, the Labor candidate for Dickson, to talk about the fact that it's affecting the residential and business access to the NBN. The residents of Dickson want action. In my capacity as duty senator for the Dickson electorate and committee member on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, the advocacy group has asked me to table their petition with 1,600 signatures and to speak in the Senate to represent their concerns—primarily, their opposition to the current allocation of fixed wireless and satellite across 65 per cent of the 4520 area.
We've all heard the painful stories from residents and businesses that suffer appalling NBN services. The negative impact is devastating to many businesses, particularly small businesses. Problems faced by the residents and businesses in the Samford Valley district are different in the sense that the area has a higher-than-the-national-average percentage of small businesses and entrepreneurs, all requiring reliable broadband services, and the area constitutes the largest national rollout of NBN fixed wireless and satellite technologies within a metropolitan area.
Originally scheduled for rollout in 2016, many 4520 suburbs are soon to receive a multitechnology mix, where 65 per cent of residents are destined to be allocated fixed wireless and satellite NBN due to oversubscription of the fixed wireless towers and the unique topographical issues in the area—mountains, valleys, rainforest, trees and vegetation, acreage and farms, urban and semirural mix—which impact on reliability, with residents experiencing frequent dropouts and outages. In addition, it's interesting to note that NBN Co categorises the Samford and district 4520 area as semirural, whereas telecommunications companies classify the area as metropolitan.
Like many areas in Australia, the Samford Valley district is another casualty of the multitechnology mix, effectively creating a digital divide of inequality across the suburbs. Due to poor planning or a lack of understanding, a number of properties on Samford Road, the main road into Samford Village, have been allocated to NBN satellite—all less than one kilometre from the Samford Telstra exchange. The absurdity is that some ready-for-satellite-service properties are within 200 metres of the Samford exchange. Understandably concerned that their area will continue to be a digital backwater for decades to come if the current NBN plan for the 4520 district is allowed to continue unchanged or unchallenged, some consumers are reverting to their ADSL service. This is unfair and unequal.
It's not just the Samford Valley that feels let down by their local member, Mr Dutton. My office regularly receives calls for help with the NBN. Just this week we received another two calls from upset Dickson residents—an elderly couple who were quoted hundreds of dollars to organise their own electrician to enable an NBN connection, and a single elderly lady who watched properties around her having NBN-enabling technology installed from late 2017 while repeatedly being told that it wouldn't occur on her property because she had Foxtel and Optus cables. Well, she doesn't have Foxtel or Optus cables. Now that the NBN switchover is imminent, she's been told she has to outlay hundreds of dollars. In both of these cases, the residents have been buck-passed from the telecommunication providers to NBN and back again in a classic case of NBN ping-pong. It's astonishing that, despite a $21.4 billion cost blowout and a rollout delay of four years, the Liberals can't meet their own local mandate in Queensland.
Labor will continue to work with local communities like Samford. While Mr Dutton has let his community down, Labor has a strong voice in Ali France, the federal Labor candidate for Dickson. Together we call on the government to stop rushing this inferior technology across the Samford Valley district area. We call on the government to ensure that NBN Co delivers fair and equitable broadband services across this community—to the homes, the schools and the businesses—by providing residents with the necessary and appropriate technology to meet their needs and expectations now and into the future.
Tonight I rise to speak about the wellbeing exemption the Department of Social Services can apply to exempt participants of the cashless debit card trial where it feels the mental, emotional or physical wellbeing of a child participant is at risk. I've been contacted by a number of community members asking how this process works.
It's no secret that the Greens vehemently oppose the cashless debit card. We know it is a punitive and patronising social experiment that this government keeps clinging to, despite a lack of rigorous research justifying its continuation. In fact, the ANAO has said that there is no evidence that the card has reduced social harm. This experiment is an ideological pet project of this government that targets some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Let's hope that when the government attempts to rush the next bill through this parliament to extend this trial the ALP has the guts to stand up and say, 'No more.'
Once a person is in a trial site and placed on the cashless debit card trial, they will remain there as long as they meet the age and payment criteria. The only way a participant can be made exempt from the trial is based on the department's own interpretation of their wellbeing using an opaque process known only to those in the department responsible for executing it. This is known as the wellbeing exemption. The department needs to be 'satisfied' that being a trial participant would seriously risk that person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing, but it is very unclear exactly how the department assesses a participant's wellbeing and the process for this.
I've been contacted, as I've said, by a number of constituents seeking clarification about what the wellbeing exemption means. When I asked for some advice from the Parliamentary Library to provide us with a brief on the procedure, all they could find was a document obtained from the department under freedom of information that provides a blanked-out, step-by-step procedure for accessing wellbeing exemptions. The online Social Security Guide provides a grand total of four lines on the procedure. There is no public knowledge about this process and how the department makes its decisions. I must ask why there is this lack of transparency? Why does the government hide behind this? Why is the government not open about this process?
We know that, at some point, the process involves the participant being assessed by a social worker, but we have no knowledge as to what that assessment looks like or what specific qualities or characteristics of trial participants the social workers are assessing. We have no knowledge as to how pre-existing mental illness or individual circumstances of the participants are taken into consideration. We have no knowledge as to how much weight the social workers' report is given by the department and what other means they are using to assess a participant's wellbeing.
Here's what we do know. A participant contacted my office recently, having completed the process. They were advised by the department that they would not be exempt until they activated and lived on the card. This decision was despite the social worker agreeing with the participant that being placed on the card would exacerbate their pre-existing mental health conditions and result in a deterioration of their wellbeing. The department, rather than being proactive and seeking to prevent a further deterioration in this person's mental health and their family's wellbeing, is asking her to put her own health at risk in order to prove that she's worthy of an exemption. This is absolutely ridiculous. What they're saying is, 'Try it out for a while and, if it worsens your mental health, then we'll have a look.' That's rather than being proactive and supporting people.
The government claims this is about helping people when, in fact, what they're saying is, 'No, get worse and then we might take you off it.' This government is playing games with the lives of Australians with regard to their life circumstances. The only avenue they provide to exempt participants—the so-called wellbeing exemption—is tightly guarded by a few people in the department who reserve the power to determine exemptions on a mystery set of guidelines and circumstances that the government won't share with the public. Out of 5,397 people on the card, only 134 have been granted an exemption. This is an unfair, draconian process. The government is determined to keep as many Australians on this card as they can possibly fit on. It's appalling.
When Labor was in government, we established the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education. This was an extraordinarily successful program which funded 15 hours a week of kindergarten or preschool across Australia. The program lifted preschool enrolment from 77 per cent in 2008 to 93 per cent today. Should we be elected to government this year, we will go even further with a National Preschool and Kindy Program, which will provide an additional year of kindergarten or preschool. That's a minimum of 15 hours per week of early learning over two years before compulsory schooling starts. This $175 billion program would be the largest investment in early childhood education in Australia and, with our policy, 700,000 three- and four-year-olds would have access to kindy and preschool.
When I talk about an additional year of early childhood education, it's important to distinguish what federal Labor is offering compared to the Hodgman Tasmanian government's dumped proposal to reduce the school starting age. I've spoken against that proposal in this place before and I will continue to oppose it for the reasons I outlined then. There is a big difference between funding an additional year of early learning and reducing the school starting age. The latter proposal would see children advancing to later years of school before they are ready, and that could be quite harmful.
I've spoken in this place before about the enormous benefits of access to early learning, and I know this not just from the research evidence in Australia and overseas but from my own personal experience of some 12 years as an early childhood educator. Some of the many benefits include improved social skills; better performance in later school years, including in reading, numeracy and non-verbal reasoning; increased attention span, greater independence, a reduction in antisocial behaviours, and the list goes on. A University of Melbourne study in 2013 found that children who attended a quality early-learning program in the year before school were up to 40 per cent ahead of their peers by the time they reached grade 3. An investment in early learning is an investment not just in our children but in the future prosperity of our country. Recent research found that for every dollar invested in early learning we reap at least $2.60 in benefit. While this investment would lift the educational achievement of all children, it particularly benefits children from vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds. The benefits aren't just for the children; they also help parents to juggle work and family responsibilities.
Federal Labor's commitment stands in stark contrast to those opposite, who, in the last budget, cut $440 million of funding to the national partnership agreement. Those opposite cut a further $20 million from the National Quality Agenda, a program which provided support to the states and territories to ensure quality and standards in early childhood education and care. They've also implemented a new childcare subsidy which leaves one in four families worse off and creates confusion and complexity for many families trying to understand and use the system. Quite simply the Liberals' record on investing in early learning has been abysmal. We heard the Minister for Education, Mr Tehan, claim he was working on securing funding for the national partnership agreement well beyond 2020, yet we have no indication the government has even commenced negotiations with the states and territories on a new partnership agreement. The government had a chance to reverse this cruel cut in MYEFO but failed to do so.
While I welcome the fact that the national partnership agreement funding has finally been restored in tonight's budget, it was cruel and short-sighted not to do so earlier. This government had plenty of opportunity to restore kindy and preschool funding yet chose to leave 350,000 children and their families in the lurch for the past 11 months. It goes to show that those opposite have reversed this cut only because they've been shamed into doing so, not because they believe in the value of early learning. The government's record on the national partnership agreement speaks volumes about its lack of commitment to early learning. Australians need a government which understands and appreciates the value of early learning not only for Australia's economy but also for the enormous benefits it brings to the social, intellectual and emotional development of Australia's children—and that, of course, would be a Shorten Labor government.
Last week I was in Queensland for a seniors forum with Labor's fabulous candidate for Petrie, Corinne Mulholland, and Senator Ketter. I am very excited at the thought of having Corinne join us here in Canberra. She's exactly the type of hardworking and enthusiastic advocate we need in the other place. Corinne is so passionate about her community. Her understanding of the issues facing older Australians is second to none. As part of this trip I also visited Opal Aged Care at North Lakes and Cooinda House with Senator Ketter and Corinne. Cooinda House is a state-run home and has a great story of renewal and revitalisation. It's a home that has a mix of 60 people living with dementia and mental illness. What stood out to me the most about this home is their model of person centred care and their residential aged-care ambassador. They're constantly refreshing their skills, and many of them have undertaken the dementia massive open online course through the University of Tasmania. This online course has ranked in the top 50 online courses in the world. Many of the staff have also lived a day in the life of a resident, so there's an extra understanding and empathy in the level of care provided. One of the residents we spoke to, Peter, said that a lot of small changes that have been made have made all the difference to their quality of care and the feeling of having a home. They've integrated the choice of food and catering and the sorts of outings they have with their residents, which is a really good turnaround in particular for that home.
As I mentioned, Cooinda House has a residential aged-care ambassador, Ash Lloyd, believed to be the first role of its kind. Ash's ambassadorial role was designed to provide a calming and reassuring presence in the home and to help de-escalate any potential safety concerns. The ambassador has become an integral part of the care team and is there to be a companion, a listener and a calming influence for frail and elderly residents, especially those living with dementia or mental illness. The ambassador's role is inspired by the successful work being done in other Queensland hospitals and in Canada, where ambassadors provide interventions and de-escalate possible incidents in emergency departments. Staff and residents both told me that having Ash as the ambassador has resulted in better safety and reduced anxiety in the home, and having spoken to him and heard his commitment to and passion for the job that he has, I am reassured that the role is a great asset to that home. I love seeing the new innovation and the thinking outside the box when it comes to aged care, and I congratulate all the staff and also the residents for their involvement in turning this home around.
There are enormous opportunities in the aged-care sector, but we need a government and a minister who will give the portfolio the attention it needs and value the care that older Australians deserve. This brings me to the issue of the Home Care Packages waitlist—an ongoing issue that those opposite just don't seem to be able to curb. After years of cuts, after billions of dollars being cut from the aged-care sector, anything that this government touches when it comes to aged care turns to stone. In the last few months, after pressure from us on this side and others in the community, what they've tried to do is too little too late. Every time those opposite are questioned about the increasing Home Care Packages waitlist, their defences go up and they start talking about interim lower-level packages or other options for interim care that are available to those waiting for Home Care Packages.
For the past two years I've stressed that these interim measures of care just aren't adequate and that the government wasn't doing enough. A new report released last week by Leading Age Services Australia, LASA, has reinforced the Morrison government's sheer incompetence and mismanagement of this issue. The report shows that older Australians who are on interim aged-care packages often die or end up in residential facilities before getting their appropriate care. According to this report, almost one in four people died while waiting on an interim package, and almost 43 per cent entered residential care while in the queue. This is not a report commissioned by the opposition; this is a report by LASA, Leading Age Services Australia. The report also highlighted that people are waiting up to 12 months longer for their package than government figures suggest. This is, frankly, not acceptable. It's deplorable, and those opposite should be ashamed. The Home Care Packages issue has been so poorly managed, it's not funny.
A case in point: a 97-year-old woman in my home state of Tasmania recently had funding for her level 4 package cut off. When her provider inquired as to why this had happened, they were told that she had died—she was listed in the system as 'deceased'. This was most certainly not the case. This poor woman was still very much alive. This is a 97-year-old woman who lives alone and requires the highest level of care available. For some unfathomable and unacceptable reason, she was marked as deceased and removed completely from the My Aged Care system. There was no reason for this woman to be assumed to have died—no reason at all.
This was one case that was brought to our attention. How many mishaps have happened while this government has been so incompetent in managing the aged-care sector? This situation has since been resolved, but I wonder just how often errors of this extreme extent are occurring under this incompetent government. I've been contacted about instances of families being sent letters saying their mother's or father's home care package is available after they've died. Can you imagine how distressing this must be for these families?
I have spoken time and time again in this place about the seriousness of the crisis in the aged-care sector. This government and the Liberal coalition have been in power for six years. We've had three ministers, and you have to say there's something about consistency, because all three of them have failed older Australians. They have failed each and every one of them. This isn't just what I or other people on this side of the chamber have observed; it's what they have finally realised themselves, which is why they called the royal commission into aged care. They've called it because they have failed older Australians, and they should be ashamed.
It's just inconceivable that in a country as rich as Australia, where we have known for some decades about the ageing of our population, they are so ill prepared and unable to administer the rollout of home care packages and to address the crisis that's facing this sector. They throw their hands up in the air, whether you're talking about home care packages or whether you talk about the crisis in the workforce. It's just unbelievable. There are 128,000 older Australians who are still waiting for their home care packages, and there has been absolutely no relief whatsoever in the budget that was just handed down tonight. The biggest con that this government has tried to do is to camouflage and reannounce the 10,000 home care packages that it announced last week or the week before. What a disgrace.
Well, older Australians have had enough. Australians are fed up with this government. It's time that we had a government that is serious about looking after older Australians. We need a minister in the cabinet room. We need a minister that's going to have the audacity to stand up to Treasury and to Finance in the future and provide the funding that is needed for aged care. Older Australians deserve better. When, like the current government, you don't even have a minister in cabinet, that's never going to happen. Bill Shorten has already committed to having ageing in cabinet, so the minister for ageing and aged care into the future, if we're fortunate enough to win the next election, will be a cabinet minister. Australians are ready for it. They're ready to get rid of this government, and I say: bring the election on.
I rise tonight to speak on a few issues, but it would be remiss of me in beginning if I didn't acknowledge today as budget day. We have just heard an extraordinary budget speech from the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, delivering what this government has committed to do for the past five years, which is to bring the budget back into surplus to begin to pay down Labor's debt; to deliver jobs; to deliver certainty and growing funding for roads, for health care, for aged care and for families; and to deliver tax cuts, bringing tax cuts forward and delivering even more tax cuts for Australian families and for Australian small businesses. So to the Treasurer and to the Minister for Finance and the Public Service I say: an extraordinarily good job and a wonderful plan for the future of Australia.
I did rise tonight, though, to speak on a few issues of particular interest to me, one of which, which I have risen to speak on before, is the issue of live sheep exports from Western Australia. It is important, as this is an issue of vital, vital importance to the rural industries of WA and also South Australia. It's important to get on the record, in the face of some legitimate community outrage at pictures that were revealed last year, what the industry has done to address those issues.
I have in front of me from RETWA, Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd, numbers from the last four voyages that they've undertaken to the Middle East. I'll go through some of the numbers, because they are extraordinary, and all people in this place, and all Australians, should understand just how extraordinary these numbers are. On a voyage with a departure date of 23 December last year, 69,917 sheep were loaded, and there were 211 deaths. On 18 January, 64,548 sheep were loaded, and on that voyage there were 140 deaths. On 5 February this year, 71,160 sheep were loaded, and on that voyage there were 329 deaths. On a voyage beginning on 14 March this year, there were 209 deaths. In all those cases, there were discharge success rates well in excess of 99 per cent and mortality rates well lower than what would be expected on many farming enterprises. These are extraordinary results and demonstrate that the industry is delivering on the important desire in the Australian community to see that animal welfare standards from Australia are maintained at the highest level possible whilst still providing an avenue for export of our livestock.
So that is a credit to the industry. Obviously, it does mean that we need to recognise that more could have been done in the past, so I think it is also a credit to this government that we addressed the issue in a sensible way. We gave the industry an opportunity to address the problems within it, and it has addressed those problems. Now all in this place, and all those in the other place, need to look at the facts, look at what is happening on board those ships and take that into account in any decision they are going to think about making into the future.
I also want to address the issue of wages, particularly the minimum wage, which has come up a number of times in the last few months. I found, in having a look into the issue and researching the issue, a very interesting study in the US, in Seattle. This is an interesting academic study because, in the US, minimum wages are set at a very local level, so you can actually see what happens on the ground. You have a control group because you have very closely comparable areas close by where minimum wages are not increased and relatively small areas where minimum wages are increased. This study in particular looked at Seattle. What this study found was very interesting because it revealed what you would expect if you thought about this issue. I will read a quote from the study itself:
… the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance caused hours worked by low-skilled workers … to fall by 9.4%—
during the period of the study—
resulting in a loss of 3.5 million hours worked per calendar quarter.
So, per three months, 3.5 million hours were lost. The study went on to say, 'These results suggest a fundamental rethinking,' in how we need to look at this issue of low-wage work and the issue of changes to the minimum wage and the negative impact that can have on low-wage workers. In fact, the reduction in hours that this study found would have cost average employees $179 per month while the wage increase that caused the loss of those hours only recouped them $54. So you see a net loss of $125 per month for low-wage workers.
Another thing this study found is that—not surprisingly, if you think about this for a little while—businesses changed their behaviour. Businesses such as restaurants employing low-wage workers employed fewer staff and went to technology. Instead of using waiters to serve tables and take people's orders, they bought a few iPads and they allowed for ordering at the counter, so they needed less staff on duty. This is not a surprise, but this is the inevitable outcome of a rush to raise minimum wages in a way that is not conducive to the best outcome for low-wage workers.
Finally tonight, I just want to address an email campaign I, and I'm sure many others in this place, have been receiving, an email campaign on self-managed superannuation funds and, in particular, Labor's attack on self-managed superannuation funds. I say to those people, that email campaign, those self-funded retirees who have worked hard to look after themselves in retirement and are deeply concerned about Labor's policy to double tax dividends: send an email to your members of parliament. That's a great idea. But talk to 10 young people. Go out into the community and talk to 10 young people and tell them exactly how unfair Labour's double taxation on dividend imputation is. That is the way that you will change that very bad policy and, of course, the better way is to make sure that a coalition government is re-elected when the election is called. Thank you.
I rise this evening to talk about parliamentary and institutional reform efforts in Malaysia, one of Australia's key trading partners and closest friends in the Asia-Pacific region. The friendship between Australia and Malaysia is both longstanding and broad. Recent events in Malaysia have reinforced the important leadership role it can play, and will play, across our region. Last year, Malaysia elected a new government and embraced a new direction. The newly elected Malaysian government was elected on the promise of restoring good governance and the rule of law, strengthening democratic institutions and implementing new measures of accountability. In summary, this manifesto contained a promise to improve the welfare of the Malaysian people, with a focus on those living in rural areas, minority groups, Indigenous people and the lower middle class, who are often forgotten. There was a promise to restore democratic institutions and rule of law—a promise for all Malaysian citizens, regardless of their race or religion. There was a promise to stop the corruption of national institutions and to strengthen the rule of law by ensuring the independence and integrity of important government agencies. Importantly, there was a promise to address political corruption. By tackling corruption, malfeasance and theft through the pursuit of sustainable economic growth, and by spreading the benefits to all, not just to those in power, Malaysia is setting itself on a course of prosperity and freedom.
Their Prime Minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad, was elected to office after a decisive victory for the Alliance of Hope coalition on 9 May 2018. The result of the 9 May election was one of the most significant events in the lifetime of many Malaysians, whether they live in Malaysia, in Australia or elsewhere. The level of civic participation combined with leadership from numerous quarters came together to say, 'We, Malaysia, want our country back. We Malaysians want less corruption. We Malaysians want more genuine government for the people of Malaysia.' It was a story, a political message, a political campaign that was quite inspiring and led to a very decisive and important election win for Malaysia. It was all done in the face of strong resistance and intimidation from those who held power in Malaysia. It was a giant moment for Malaysia. It was a giant moment for Asia.
When we look at progress to date there is much cause for optimism, especially when we acknowledge that the reform manifesto is very ambitious and contains a significant number of economic and financial reforms. Commentators are in general agreement that the domestic reform agenda is progressing well. The government has shown a strong commitment to improving transparency and accountability in the public sector and has taken many steps to advance these important causes. In fact, despite having to work with a coalition comprising of a loose group of affiliated parties and alliances, the government delivered on a number of key policy reforms within their first 100 days.
Institutional reform commenced immediately with nine key agencies, including the commissions for public service, national audit, anticorruption, elections and judicial appointments, now reporting to parliament rather than the Prime Minister. A parliamentary public accounts committee was established with its chair coming from the ranks of Mahathir's former party, the United Malays National Organisation, or UMNO, the party now in opposition. This is a reform which will enhance government accountability. However, one of the many positive developments from this significant step forward has been the government's willingness to engage in widespread law reform and to do this in consultation with Malaysia's legal community.
This evening, I must acknowledge not just the work of Dr Mahathir in leading Malaysia to a new place, a better place, but I'd also like to put on record my acknowledgement for the work that the Malaysian minister of law in the Prime Minister's Department has been doing and, in particular, his announcement in October 2018. On that day, the biggest news in human rights was the announcement that the Malaysian government would begin the path, begin the pursuit, of law reform around the abolition of the death penalty. There's cautious optimism that legislation will be presented to pursue this important ambition, the ambition of the abolition of the death penalty, in coming months. I commend the government for its courage and commitment to this noble pursuit.
This move in Malaysia also reflects a wider achievement—that is, the growing momentum behind a new international standard that we no longer accept that the state should be killing its own people, and that is really as simple as it can be. I'm sure all of those in this parliament and in parliaments across the world are excited, cautiously optimistic, that Malaysia has set itself on the ambitious path of abolishing the death penalty. Malaysia's death penalty reform will earn it a reputation as a leader in the region. While there are other countries in this region that have moved away from the use of capital punishment, Malaysia's recent actions will prompt others to revisit the issue. It's a clear and greatly welcomed step.
On matters closer to home, I'm also pleased to report that the Australian government has been actively engaging with Malaysia and offering assistance with their democratic and institutional reform agenda. Specifically, these actions included: engagement through Australia's high commissioner in Kuala Lumpur with Malaysia's international reform committee on key features of Australia's democratic institutions; official visits where Australian public officials and elected representatives met with Malaysia's Council of Eminent Persons in Kuala Lumpur during August 2018 to compare insights on both of our countries' economic and institution reform experience; and a Malaysian parliamentary delegation, led by the Speaker of the federal lower house, attended the Australian Parliament House in Canberra in September 2018. The visit was hosted by the International and Parliamentary Relations Office, and during their visit the delegation learned about Australia's parliamentary system and processes.
In December 2018, a further Malaysian delegation was invited to Australia to learn about Australia's electoral processes, hosted by our very own Australian Electoral Commission. The Walkley Foundation sent a delegation to Malaysia under the public diplomacy program to engage Malaysian journalists, media organisations and government officials on Australia's experience with independent media, investigative journalism and media representative bodies. At Malaysia's request, the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP travelled to Malaysia in December 2018 to discuss parliamentary select committees. There is an upcoming gender policy dialogue scheduled for May of this year in Malaysia, an initiative that was announced by former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister to exchange experiences in the area of eliminating violence against women, furthering women's economic empowerment and increasing women's labour force participation.
On a personal level, I've been pleased to continue my own engagement with the new Malaysian government and delighted to have had the very rare, distinct privilege of having met Dr Mahathir on two occasions, once as opposition leader and more recently in his role as Prime Minister. I'm indebted to him for the very privileged opportunity to share with him his experiences as a regional leader.
As chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I had the opportunity to participate also in the December 2018 parliamentary delegation and contribute to constructive dialogue with Malaysia's Speaker of the parliament and a number of members of their equivalent committee. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of Malaysian political staffers here in Canberra and was very impressed by their commitment to reform and to democratic practice in Malaysia and was inspired by their passion to improve their country, not just for themselves but for generations into the future.
I'm sure I speak for many Australians when I say I'm excited about the prospect of reform in Malaysia and look forward to watching closely these important Malaysian milestones—a truly positive direction that will no doubt benefit all Malaysian citizens both now and into the future.
I rise to speak on and share with the Senate an event that occurred in the Northern Territory, in particular in the Top End, with Cyclone Trevor. Cyclone Trevor was a very strong cyclone that was going to be coming our way. There was perhaps the biggest evacuation effort in the Northern Territory since the post Cyclone Tracy effort of evacuating residents from Darwin in 1974. More than 2,000 residents were relocated or evacuated or self-evacuated from a number of these communities. Communities in Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt and in Bickerton Island were evacuated. Some residents stayed at Angurugu and Alyangula. Across on the mainland, there was the complete evacuation of Numbulwar, the complete evacuation of Ngukurr and the complete evacuation of Borroloola and Robinson River. Numerous outstations and homelands in the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Arnhem region were also evacuated, which brought the total to more than 2,000 residents. The evacuation of our remote regions was the biggest in the history of the Northern Territory. I want to take the time this evening to thank the people involved with that massive evacuation.
Cyclones or flooding or bushfires are scary and deeply stressful times for people—times of crisis, where communication is essential, where there is a coordinated effort, where calm is very much key to trying to maintain the relocation of so many people. This evacuation also held some really historical fears, especially for some of the elders who had to evacuate and were forced to leave their communities and their homelands. It conjured up images and memories of days gone by, when they were rounded up. For a lot of the elders, there had to be certain kinds of translations and care given in explaining the importance of this evacuation and that, yes, they would be returning back home to country.
There were buses—the Bodhi Bus in particular. There were cars—people's own private cars but also those cars that assisted from around Katherine and Mataranka, Hi-Way Inn at Daly Waters and even Tennant Creek. Boats, planes and helicopters were used to get people out of the cyclone's path. We've got so many rivers in the Gulf country and the Arnhem country, so we knew that, if Cyclone Trevor maintained its course, it was certainly going to be very ferocious, with those rivers rising, isolating all these areas.
I take this opportunity to thank the agencies involved—in particular, the Australian Defence Force, who were just amazing, as they always are when they come to the aid of Australians right across this country in moments of crises. The RAAF certainly came to the aid of all the residents in these regions. I thank them very much not only for the evacuation but for the repatriation of families back to their homelands and communities.
The Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory Emergency Service personnel led this evacuation and led these decisions. Clearly, the greatest thanks and commendation has to go to Chief Minister Michael Gunner, the cabinet and the Northern Territory agencies and emergency personnel who combined together with the Australian government and the Defence Force to be able to ensure the safety of every single person in terms of this evacuation process.
In the Northern Territory government there was the Territory Families agency, the Police, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Emergency Service and Education. Thank you to the teachers out there who not only assisted in keeping calm with their students and families to leave these communities—these are the teachers who were evacuated from Borroloola and Robinson River and from Ngukurr and Numbulwar in particular—but also taught the students in the shelters in Katherine and Darwin. They were just as exhausted as anyone else. I thank them very much for being there and showing the people of the region that everything was going to be okay and that this is what happens when people work together. There was the Department of Health, the Department of the Chief Minister and all the other agencies who played a role in the evacuation and recovery efforts.
These families went to Katherine, Darwin and even Tennant Creek. I thank the people of Tennant Creek for preparing for what could have been some huge rainfall. Unfortunately and disappointingly, especially for the cattle stations in the Barkly and north of Tennant Creek who were really waiting for some of that rain to come their way, they didn't get it. But I do thank the town of Tennant Creek for being prepared for any possible evacuation from those regions of the Barkly.
Local governments played a strong role, including the Roper Gulf, East Arnhem and Central Desert regional councils. There were huge efforts by service providers and NGOs assisting people in the shelters, such as Red Cross, Save the Children and many others. I'd like to bring attention to the great work of the Larrakia People, the Larrakia Nation, in Darwin, who assisted with the buses and the transport, just being able to take the 300 or more people who were in one shelter. Also they were very much involved in transportation for basic necessities in the Darwin showgrounds where the Groote Eylandt people were located. After a while, when you're evacuated and you're staying in one area with a lot of people, you do need a bit of time out. You need to go shopping, maybe go to the movies or go and see a sporting match. You want to feel a sense of normality in a very abnormal situation. So I thank all those organisations across the Top End, the Barkly region and Tennant Creek, for their assistance in just reaching out to all these families. It was, indeed, a stressful time, and there were lots of incidents. Certainly there were concerns around the care of residents—the elderly and the people who were vulnerable.
It didn't matter whether you were black or white. Let me tell you now—on the commentary on social media which was inaccurate, completely unfair and only exacerbated an enormously stressful situation for people—that the treatment of people in these shelters was fantastic. The evidence I got was by being there. I was there at the Winnellie Showgrounds. I was there at the Marrara Stadium. I heard from families directly. They raised concerns and issues like: 'Can we have another dryer because all of our clothes are wet? Can we get a few more washing machines in? Where can we go to get some assistance with food that we might want in addition to the food we have?' People, while obviously upset at being away from home, were deeply relieved that they were not in the path of Cyclone Trevor.
To the Bureau of Meteorology and the team there, thank you for the work that you did in coordinating, along with the Northern Territory Emergency Service, the preparation. There's lots of things that can be learnt. There were some disappointments, clearly, that will come back in the feedback, but I think it's important, in moving ahead, that the Northern Territory and the people of the Northern Territory can just sit back for a minute and go: 'You know what? We did okay. We did really well, because those 2,000 people out there were glad they weren't in the path of that cyclone.' It was pretty ferocious. There are communities and outstations like Seven Emu Station and Snake Lagoon that have been really devastated.
I've just seen pictures on my Facebook page from people who are still sending me photos of some of the devastation, and it's not good. But we know that a state of emergency has been declared in these locations, and I urge people who have been severely affected to make sure that they contact the appropriate government agency for the assistance that they so rightly deserve. To the organisations that assisted with fuel—fuel was really important in trying to help those who were self-evacuating—make sure that you do the same. This is a state of emergency, and each and every person who was evacuated will be looked after. I encourage you to contact the appropriate agencies. On that note, I want to thank the people of the Northern Territory on a job well done.
The strength of our democratic institutions is underpinned by trust and integrity, but those values have been compromised and systemically undermined. The major parties have grown complacent and entitled. Those values have been used as political footballs by those putting their short-term interests above those they represent. With scandal after scandal involving corruption, misuse of public funds, political donations, unregulated lobbyists and attacks on whistleblowers, it's no wonder people are fed up. It's no wonder that public confidence in our politics is at an all-time low.
We've lost confidence because our system allows powerful lobby groups to donate millions to political parties, without public disclosure of that funding until months and, previously, years after an election. We've lost confidence because our system allows lobbyists who are employed by companies or peak bodies to go completely unregulated, as they fall outside our lobbying register. Interests of well-resourced big business and unions should not be prioritised over the public interest. We've lost confidence because our private sector leaders are held to a higher standard of behaviour—through directors' duties—than our publicly elected officials, who have no equivalent explicit duties imposed upon them. We've lost confidence because our system does not enforce the requirement that ministers wait at least 18 months after leaving cabinet before becoming a lobbyist in their former ministerial portfolio. Voters are disillusioned, angry and seeking change. We can and must win back their trust.
As the 45th Parliament draws to a close, it is timely to reflect on the contribution of Independents to the political process. In 2016, more than one in four Australians voted for someone other than the major parties. In this election, over 20 Independents have already announced that they will contest the election. Major parties have overlooked many issues important to Australians, not because they don't have merit—not because they wouldn't improve the lives of Australians—but simply because there is no political imperative. Even as the major parties are reluctant to restore the faith of voters in our democracy, the Independents have been stepping up as a viable alternative, making far-reaching improvements to policymaking.
Our parliament is improved by the presence of Independents who can vote based on evidence, based on the best interests of their communities and the country, not on outdated, inflexible ideology. Independents in both houses don't just play a key role as a check and balance to government policy—though that is critical. They are also ideally placed to voice and deliver on issues that are important to the public and their local communities but that have been ignored by the major parties. Just look at the successful examples of stalwart Independents like Cathy McGowan, Tony Windsor and Andrew Wilkie.
If you agree that politics in this country is fundamentally broken, that the most important decisions of government are being made by people who don't represent your views, then do yourself a favour and, in the lead-up to the election, take some time to see what your local Independent candidate is all about. Weigh them up and give them an honest assessment. If you find that you agree with their policies, that your views align with theirs, that they speak for you, then you should go one step further—you should vote for them. I truly believe that, if more of us voted for Independents, we would fundamentally improve the way politics is done in this country. It's not a party; it's a principle. Vote Independent.
I have been fortunate enough to be a member of the Senate for close to 500 days. I pledged that I would review every issue on its merits and on the basis of the evidence. I promised that I would not trade my vote for side benefit. I have been as good as my word, and I hope to have contributed to the standard of debate and the quality of legislation.
I am proud of the fact, for example, that I opposed the company tax package proposed by the government, reducing the impact on the budget by $36 billion over the next decade. It makes the task of restoring the budget balance that much easier and means more money is available for infrastructure—roads, hospitals and schools—which, the best evidence suggests, not only improves the quality of life of our community but also produces jobs and growth more quickly than tax cuts.
Equally, I'm proud of opposing stages 2 and 3 of the government's income tax cuts. They will do little for the less well-off and too much for the well-off, who should not be a priority when people on low and middle incomes are struggling to pay their electricity and food bills. It does appear that the government has got the message, with steps taken in tonight's budget to do more for the less well-off.
I am proud to have argued for an increase of $75 a week to Newstart, and I am disappointed that neither the government nor the ALP is prepared to commit to such action. It is a disgrace that the level of Newstart has been unchanged in real terms for a quarter of a century, leaving many jobless, living in poverty and unable to effectively seek work.
I am proud of co-sponsoring legislation to give people on Nauru and PNG access to the medical care qualified professionals believe they need, rather than leaving the decision in the hands of politicians and public servants. The legislation does not undermine the sovereignty of our borders, and to date there is no sign the people-smuggling trade has resumed.
I am proud to have instigated the inquiry into electric vehicles, which I chaired. Australia has been asleep at the wheel, left behind comparable countries in the take-up of EVs. My recommendations establish a pathway to enable Australia to catch up, and I am pleased that the ALP has drawn on my work to develop credible policy.
There are many other issues where I and other Independents have made real improvements to the quality of politics and raised issues which otherwise would not have had an airing—for example, the plight of the Murray-Darling; the threat of an oil spill in the Great Australian Bight; the cruelty of the live sheep export trade; the benefits of energy efficiency for low-income people who rent; pressing the case for legislation on modern slavery; enhancing the integrity, independence and transparency of the ABC board process; recognition of the Uluru Statement from the Heart; the Closing the Gap disappointments; and the frontier wars in our history. Many of these issues are of great concern to Australian voters, but the fact remains that the level of scrutiny and quality of solutions proposed to those issues would never have happened without the significant support of Independents. That highlights the deficit of integrity in our political system. The major parties have been taking Australian voters for granted.
This week, I am introducing in the Senate a suite of reforms for greater transparency, accountability and integrity in our political system through a parliamentary transparency charter. By pursuing such reform, we are holding those who wish to engage in behaviour that undermines the very fabric of our democracy to account. Our major parties should realise that ensuring confidence in democracy by pursuing reform in these areas is more important than what may be discovered within their ranks, and they should support my reforms. But, yet again, it looks like the major parties have put these reforms in the too-hard basket, and it is Independents and the other crossbenchers who are taking the lead. I'm pleased to report that 17 crossbenchers from both the House and the Senate have signed onto my charter just today. I invite other members of parliament to follow their lead and commit to improving our parliament's transparency and integrity.
I stand for a parliament that is for unity and hope and that truly and fairly represents all Australians, not just party insiders or inflexible ideologues. It's time to clean up our parliament and restore public trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. In the lead-up to this election, we should be demanding a higher standard from our elected officials. If you're fed up with the way politics is done in this country, the answer is simple: vote Independent.
Last year, I informed the Senate about two disturbing developments in political campaigning by the Left. The first concerned an anonymous Twitter campaign called Sleeping Giants Oz, primarily directed at Sky News by the Australian offshoot of an American online activist group. Followers are encouraged to identify so-called hate speech and send a screen shot of that content to advertisers next to their ad to discourage them from advertising with that media outlet, often with the threat of consumer boycott. I noted that such campaigns crave anonymity because they don't want to be exposed as being politically inspired.
But, more importantly, they rely on deceiving people—in this case, advertisers—about their real level of support. In this connection, a recent Brandwatch report confirmed that Sleeping Giants Oz's campaign is being driven by a small group of people. It is confected outrage originating from less than 32 accounts throughout the duration of 2019. Activity mostly involves retweets, giving the false impression to advertisers who are targeted that there is a major boycott campaign in action when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Brandwatch found that Aushiker, a Twitter account operated as a pseudonym by Western Australian lecturer Andrew Priest, was the most engaged in Sleeping Giants Oz campaign. It was responsible for about 43 per cent of activity across the top 10 most engaged accounts between 1 January and 21 February.
Aushiker's Twitter account now bears the description 'My Tweets scare the Government #NotABot'. Talking of bots, many accounts, including Aushiker, use and engage with third-party applications revealed by the tweet source label on their tweets. These third-party applications are designed to manage Twitter accounts, including scheduling automated tweets. For example, Aushiker's tweets are posted via Buffer, an application designed for businesses to improve social media management but now utilised by left-wing trolls. Lastly, I note that United Voice, the Australian Education Union and Greenpeace are now running high-rotation pro-Labor anti-coalition ads on Sky. We will see if Sleeping Giants Oz goes soft on these advertisers, like it did by omitting the Australia Institute from an earlier Sky advertisers list.
The second disturbing development I outlined last year involves another influence campaign being conducted via Twitter to the benefit of the Australian Labor Party. This campaign spreads misinformation and political spam via a large web of mainly anonymous and also automated Twitter accounts which churn out similar, if not identical, pro-Labor, pro-union, anti-coalition content, creating an echo chamber of reinforcing noise. I identified nine such accounts. One narrowly missed the cut because it just didn't tweet as much as the others—and get cracking, Alan—and was called JohnWren1950. Last week, Twitter permanently suspended this account for impersonation, after John Wren posted a fake memo purportedly from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, using its letterhead. Wren's devious post—putting this obviously fake memo into the public domain under the ruse of wanting to confirm its authenticity—was a crude attempt to foment fake news. Wren is now wallowing in his petty notoriety, penning a paranoid self-justification for Independent Australia. He exhibits the remarkable facility of the Left and those trolls I mentioned in my last speech of simultaneously complaining about being called out and, in doing so, verging on paranoia while basking in their 15 milliseconds of fame.
Witness Sir Clyde Of Nob, now dubbing himself 'Lord Clyde Of HANSARD', while Big Al now styles himself as 'BigAl of hansard fame but not a bot'. The trolls I did mention and their apologists think they ought to be able to flood the twittersphere with bile and bosh but escape scrutiny and then cry that they are being suppressed. They are truly legends on their own laptops. Even more revealing is their common misrepresentation—possibly due to illiteracy, but I suspect deliberate—of my speeches on these subjects as suggesting these Labor trolls were actual Russian bots when I was clearly just noting the similar methods used in their influence campaigns and the danger of both in the lead-up to the upcoming election.
But proving that truth is stranger than fiction, a recently released dataset of Twitter accounts identified as being from the Internet Research Agency, the infamous Russian troll factory, disclosed one account that, in late July to early August 2017, twice tweeted directly to the Labor troll, virgotweet. So here we have a Russian internet research troll talking directly to a Labor troll. This IRA account that purports to be located in the United States predominantly retweeted Australian politicians and political commentators but notably twice tweeted virgotweet directly, suggesting this account was identified as a potential vector for pushing a specific agenda or debate. It shows the risks, even for domestic trolls, of disseminating fake news and propaganda.
The Australian public should be conscious of the distortion of political sentiment via social media channels, especially as the public and media frequently use Twitter as a barometer of public sentiment. Again, I call on Twitter to review accounts like those I have identified, which degrade its own platform. Australians should be able to engage with the upcoming election campaign free from domestic as well as foreign social media interference campaigns.
I was just thinking that I did not understand one-fifth of what you just spoke about, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, but I will study up. I promise!
Issues around appropriate access to counselling and psychological care for people who have been impacted by life trauma have been raised in a number of Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiries over the years. You may have been part of some of those, Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman. It seems to me that we need to be very careful when promising that there will be access to appropriate care when we aren't really sure of where the services are or how they operate.
I can remember—and, in this contribution, I'm going to use examples from three separate inquiries—the two community affairs committee inquiries into people who were victims of institutional care—not the royal commission into sexual abuse that we've just gone through but the original Senate community affairs committees, where we listened to evidence from a range of people who, in their childhood, had been directly impacted by horrific conditions, by treatment that did not generate love, by feelings of insecurity, by a loss of family identity and by just plain fear. These people came to tell us about these experiences. We as a committee, then as a parliament and then as a government came together to offer an official apology to these people.
One of the components of that apology was that there would be an acknowledgement of their suffering and trauma by them having access to appropriate care through counselling for the extent of their lifetime. This was followed up later by the Senate inquiry that looked into the issue of forced adoption in our nation, where women had their children taken from them at birth and then had that ongoing life trauma and that sense of loss, guilt and shame that this had occurred to them. Again, through the parliamentary inquiry, we listened as they talked to us about the impact this had on them and also on the children who were taken. They also said that they had experienced issues of loss of identity and fear and insecurity, all stemming from this significant separation that occurred through our system, through government interference, through strategic processes that we now know, whilst maybe done for reasons that people can tell themselves were appropriate, were in fact illegal. We acknowledged that, we apologised and we told those people that we would be able to provide appropriate psychological counselling for them into the future.
What has occurred has been a great variation of access. There has been an acknowledgement that this care should be provided—and not just any care. One of the things that came out of those inquiries was that there needed to be specialist training and specialist understanding for the professionals dealing with the people with the trauma. Consistently we're told that when people did seek out care they were even further damaged by the fact that people just did not understand the issues around the institutional care or the forced adoption, so people had to retell their stories and had the sense that the professionals with whom they were dealing didn't understand their issues and were trying to treat them within models that were not appropriate. We understood that, and the parliament indicated that there had to be special guidelines introduced and circulated that gave information to medical professionals about these issues, which had been largely unknown until the Senate inquiries brought them to public notice.
But consistently we've heard back from the people who turned to us and told us their stories, and we then said that we would provide support to, who say that access to the care has been varied at best. In regional and remote areas there is absolutely no availability of the care that's required as it is within the cities. There's variation in knowledge and access, and also over the years there have been increasing out-of-pocket costs for people wanting to receive the care. By the model of medical practice and psychological medical access to the MBS, people have had excess out-of-pocket expenditure to access the treatment that we promised we would provide for them.
I am very fearful that the same kinds of issues are going to be evident in what we're doing now with the redress scheme. One of the core components of the royal commission's recommendations around people who had suffered sexual assault in institutions was that they would have lifelong counselling. This lifelong counselling was going to be determined individually by people who had been harmed—about the form of counselling they would need and the access they would require. Subsequently, in the government legislation that's come forward to look at how we would implement the redress program, this has not translated into lifelong counselling. On a scale determined by the seriousness of the sexual assault that has occurred, people have access to hours of care or a lump sum so that they can seek their own care to the extent that the money holds together.
Each state is looking at providing care in different ways. Some states have identified as providers, so that the form of provision of care will be linked to the current providers across the state, and people will be able to access this. Other states have chosen to go different ways, and people will be given lump sums and will be able to seek out providers themselves to provide the care they so obviously need, which has been identified by their trauma and by the circumstances and the evidence that they've provided to the royal commission and to the previous Senate inquiry.
I'm deeply concerned about the access to care, about the quality of the care that's provided and about the flexibility of care, because every person is different; you cannot just state that every person will have the same response and the same need. We need flexible, personal case-based arrangements in this space, and too often this is just not available in our current system. When we raised these issues with the departments, we were told that, if the provisions of care run out, what can happen is that people can access the basic provisions under the current mental health process to access psychological services. That means, after you've been to a GP, you can access up to 10 visits in one year of care. That is not a flexible arrangement. There's also no guarantee that the providers will have the specialist knowledge that is needed for people who have the particular trauma caused by either sexual abuse, which came out during the royal commission process, or being separated from their family and being in institutions.
I think, as a parliament, when we make promises that care will be available to people who've come to us with their circumstances, we should ensure that appropriate resourcing is provided and that that care is effective. I am troubled by the way the care arrangements have been defined in the redress program. In fact, the level of care is determined by how serious the alleged sexual assault was. That's a deep flaw in the process. It's something we'll have to consider because this will not go away. People will continue to need care into the future. We have said to them that we've heard and understood their pain. We have said to them that there should be care available to them. I think we have a responsibility to make sure the people we have apologised to have the care that they so desperately need.
This is not my first speech. Senator David Leyonhjelm sought a freer Australia. As his replacement for the Liberal Democrats, I want to continue that legacy. The Liberal Democrats seek to reduce the tax burden, to end the nanny state, to end the police state, to end the war on drugs and, basically, to just leave you all alone. These aren't just slogans. As Senator David Leyonhjelm showed when he introduced 12 detailed bills on each of these matters, we've got real solutions for all of these issues. Tonight, in the 10 minutes that I have, I'd like to run through these 12 bills if I can.
The most recent bill that Senator David Leyonhjelm introduced on behalf of the Liberal Democrats was the Lower Tax Bill 2018. This bill would nearly halve Commonwealth tax. It would deliver, on average, $10,000 of tax cuts to each and every Australian each year, and $8,000 of tax cuts would come in the form of income tax cuts each year. This would be delivered through a $40,000 tax-free threshold and a 20 per cent tax rate after that. The Liberal Democrats also have a fully costed plan to reduce the company tax rate to 20 per cent. This is the final rate of tax paid by foreign investors, and foreign investors react to tax rates when they decide where to invest and where to employ. The Liberal Democrats would also abolish alcohol tax. You shouldn't be taxed more just because of your choice of drink. The Liberal Democrats would also abolish tobacco tax. Smokers already pay a macabre cost for their addiction. Smokers die earlier than everyone else, so they spend much less time on the age pension and much less time in aged care. They already save the taxpayers a bucket load of cash through their addiction. They shouldn't be penalised more through ridiculously high taxes. The Liberal Democrats would also abolish fuel taxes and the luxury car tax because you shouldn't be punished because of the distance you drive. We would also abolish the passenger movement charge because that's a tax on tourism. We shouldn't be taxing one of our best industries. And the Liberal Democrats would abolish the major bank levy because that just gets passed on to all of us.
That was just Senator Leyonhjelm's most recent bill. Before that, he introduced, and nearly passed, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. You own your own body and you should be able to decide how you end your own life, and, if you need it, you should be able to get assistance. In particular, if you're in one of the territories, you have the right, as much as anyone else in Australia, to have your parliament legislate for assisted suicide.
Senator David Leyonhjelm, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, also introduced the GST-free electricity bill. For us to solve the issues on electricity prices, we need to start building low-cost power generators. But in the meantime, to provide some relief to Australian households, we could have GST-free electricity. This would save households, on average, about $200 a year.
Senator David Leyonhjelm, for the Liberal Democrats, also attacked the war on drugs by introducing a bill to remove Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis. In conjunction with states, this would mean that we could legalise cannabis. Keeping cannabis illegal just makes otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. It provides a ridiculous burden on our criminal justice system, both police and prisons, that's completely unnecessary, and it props up organised crime. Legalising cannabis generally would also help dramatically improve access to medicinal cannabis.
Senator David Leyonhjelm also introduced a bill to allow small businesses in the retail and hospitality sector to not pay penalty rates on weekends. This would mean that more restaurants, cafes and shops would offer more hours to more workers and stay open more often, for the convenience of all.
Senator David Leyonhjelm didn't shirk the details either; not everything he did was a high-level, sexy issue. One of the bills he introduced was the model litigant bill, an extremely boring bill about making the Commonwealth behave better when it goes to court. Too often, the Commonwealth goes to court and squeezes the other party dry, even when it knows it has no case. The Commonwealth says it follows obligations to act like a model litigant, but Senator David Leyonhjelm's bill would have made those obligations enforceable. It's an important bill we should continue to pursue, particularly with respect to the ATO.
Senator David Leyonhjelm, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, also introduced a bill to legalise vaping. It is absolutely ridiculous that cigarettes, which are so harmful for your health, are legal, while vaping, which is clearly better for your health, remains illegal. It is scandalous and it is causing people to die. Vaping must be legalised.
Finally, Senator David Leyonhjelm introduced four free-speech bills on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. You may have only heard about his high-profile bill to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This bill is important. We have to remember that Andrew Bolt, like him or love him, wrote articles about affirmative action. They might not have been the most polite articles you would ever read, and they had flaws in them, but that doesn't change the fact that we need our columnists to write about affirmative action. Free speech is how we discover the truth in a democracy. Debate is how we discover truth in a democracy. We cannot just say we know for certain that our current affirmative action policies are absolutely correct; there needs to be debate. Andrew Bolt should not have been breaking the law when he wrote his articles. But that's just the most high profile free-speech bill that Senator David Leyonhjelm introduced.
A related bill, generally, was the insult and offend bill. 'Insult and offend' doesn't just appear as words in the Racial Discrimination Act. It is illegal to insult and offend a whole array of government tribunals. This is completely arse about. The government serves us, the public. The public should be free to insult government tribunals as much as they want. There are a massive array of government tribunals where it is illegal to insult them or to offend them, either in or out of the tribunal. This doesn't mean that you'd be allowed to disrupt the proceedings. It would just mean you'd be allowed to insult them. The people are in charge, not the government.
The most important free speech bill that the Liberal Democrats introduced was the bill that reduced restrictions on free speech in national security legislation. The most offensive part of Commonwealth law at the moment, I think, is preventative detention. You, as an Australian citizen, can be taken off the streets by police and detained. You don't need to be charged with anything; you don't even need to be suspected of anything. The police can just detain you. The police give you a phone call. You're allowed to call a family member. But you're not allowed to tell them anything other than, 'Hello. I'm safe, but I won't be available for a while,' then you have to hang up. If you dare to tell your family member, who's worried sick, that you are being detained by your state, you have broken the law and you will go to prison for five years. Someone who is not charged with anything, someone who is not suspected of anything, who just tells their family member that they are being detained by their state—that's a criminal offence, sending you to jail for five years. It's ridiculous. The other aspect of that security bill is to allow journalists to do their jobs reporting on the activities of security agencies, something they should not go to jail for either. Finally, the last free speech bill was to reduce censorship in our country. Free speech involves freedom not just to communicate but also to receive communications. I will continue Senator Leyonhjelm's legacy.
This could very well be my last speech in this place. As it comes up to just a little over a year since I was randomly catapulted into this chamber, and as we stare down the barrel of a federal election, I thought I'd offer some thoughts on the choices that I've watched this chamber make in my time here. I came here with a desire to bring the voices of young people, with a desire to bring the voices of disabled people, with a desire to serve the green movement burning in my heart and with a hope that I would find here, in parliament, people of goodwill and good faith who, when putting an argument of logic and fact, would mould their opinion to suit the time and the challenge. This is the aspiration of the vast majority of Australians when we look to our parliament. We hope to see our leaders making the choice of truth over lies, hope over fear, and love over hate. Yet, they find, as I have found, that the truth couldn't be further from that.
In this last year, I have watched as a government has come and go, as an opposition has let egregious human rights abuses go by, and as billions have been spent on handouts to the corporations who believe they run this place and, on some days, bloody well do. I have watched as hate has spewed forth in this place and has been met with a faux confrontation which has refused to take ownership of the role that has been played in the creation of it. I have watched again and again as the important issues—homelessness, the affordability of housing and education—have been forced off the political agenda by selfish political manoeuvring, as one side attempts to get it over on the other, as countless hours have been wasted in this place in the pursuit of selfish political gains and as the pale, stale, male mass that this place so often looks like comprehensively fails to comprehend or reflect the needs and desires of the community it serves.
While we have been subject to paralysis, while we have continued to be playing a game in here, and while the major parties have continued to circle each other, wondering what the next media line is that they can get out of each other in the next media cycle, the community has been moving on. The community has been demanding better. I marched alongside 5,000 young people in WA demanding urgent climate action. We joined with 160,000 across Australia and millions across the globe to say: 'Enough is enough—our future must come first. You cannot continue to sell it to the highest fossil fuel bidder.' I have watched as people have stepped into the role of leadership in their community. I have watched as Clinton Pryor walked across the country to tell those who crown themselves leaders in this place the stories of his community and had the door slammed in his face.
The community shares, as I share, the frustration and anger at this disconnect. We are not going to take it anymore. We are not going to be played for fools anymore. As this miserable government staggers to its end, pursued by one of the most lacklustre oppositions in Australian political history, the Australian people have never been more united in their demand for something different—for a movement which says: 'We should look higher. We should be better. We should strive to do more. People come first. Planet comes first. And corporate donations have no place in our system of democracy.'
We are on a great collision course with the desires of the electorate. Way out west, where I am from, there is a movement rising of young people, of women, of people of colour, and of people who reflect the diversity and the energy and the hope of the Australian community. They rise across this country, looking to put their energy and their anger into action and looking to demand something better at the ballot box. I am proud to campaign with them. I am proud to call myself green. I am proud to put myself before the people of WA, the community I love, and make a case for a future for all of us that leaves no-one out, that accepts nobody left behind, that preserves our precious places and that takes action when it is needed, whether that action is politically convenient or not.
Whenever election day comes, I know where I'll be. I'll be in my state, I'll be with my community and I'll be campaigning until the very last moment for the principles which should be at the heart of this place—for hope over fear, for love over hate, for truth over lies and for a future for all of us. I thank the chamber for its time.
One of the most extraordinary experiences of my almost five years in this place is being in close proximity to people who deny the science of climate change. Yes, Dorothy, sadly, they really do still exist in the Liberal Party, the National Party and, disappointingly, even in the Labor Party. It's incredible, isn't it, when you think that the scientific consensus about global warming has been known for over 40 years, that these people are still in positions of power in our parliament. I learned about climate change as a 20-year-old science student. It politicised me. I remember coming out of a climate science lecture thinking: 'This is bloody serious. The world needs to be doing something about it.' That awareness led me to a career as an environment campaigner and then to politics, to being one of the founders of the Greens in Victoria, building political power for the action that is needed to truly and properly tackle our climate crisis. Decades on, the Greens are still the only party that acknowledges that we are in a climate emergency and the only party that has a plan of the scale and the substance to tackle this crisis.
And it is a crisis. Have no doubt. The past Australian summer tells the story. We've just had the hottest March on record, which followed the hottest January on record, the hottest start of the year on record. We had south-eastern Australia suffering one of the worst droughts ever. We had two massive fish kills in the Murray-Darling Basin. We had 23,000 spectacled flying foxes falling dead out of the sky one hot summer Queensland afternoon, almost a third of their total population. We had bushfires around the country, including those that razed rainforests in Tasmania and in Queensland—forests that had never previously been burnt. In February, we had the record rainfall and flooding around Townsville that killed half a million head of cattle and destroyed the homes, livelihoods and infrastructure of entire communities. What is distressing, of course, is that we can't just turn the heat off now that we've realised that the damage is being done. Tackling climate change now is like taking a cast-iron pot off the heat: it keeps on doing an awful lot of cooking before it cools down.
Have no doubt Australia is a massive player in our climate crisis. Coal is the world's biggest cause of climate change, and Australia is the world's biggest exporter of coal. Eighty per cent of the coal that we dig up in Australia is exported, and it's burnt overseas. We have a responsibility and an opportunity to lead the transition away from a coal-fuelled economy and look after workers as we do so. Yes, this is a big change, and it's one which Labor and Liberal MPs alike seem to be having some difficulty coming to terms with, but it's absolutely necessary, because you cannot argue with physics. Without a plan to quit coal, we are not tackling climate change.
There's another area where Australia contributes to climate change needlessly and unnecessarily, and that is, of course, the logging of our native forests, our incredibly precious native forests that are being destroyed, mostly for woodchips, in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. These forests are incredibly rich carbon stores. Indeed, the Victorian mountain ash forests just to the east of Melbourne hold more carbon, tree for tree, than any other forest anywhere in the world. Yet the Labor and Liberal parties, on a destruction unity ticket, are allowing these precious forests, including trees hundreds of years old, to be clear-felled, destroyed for woodchips for paper, and the carbon stores are lost. If that wasn't bad enough, the rest of the vegetation left behind—the tree ferns, the tree canopies and the trees that aren't quite the right shape, size or quality—is bombed with napalm from above and set alight, sending all of that carbon pollution up into the sky. The plumes of smoke that blanket Melbourne and much of the state's east each autumn are from these destructive and unnecessary fires.
In doing so, the logging and these fires are killing threatened animals like the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum, which only lives in these critically endangered mountain ash forests. Across the country, logging is killing swift parrots, western ringtail possums, regent honeyeaters, koalas, Carnaby's cockatoos and giant freshwater crayfish. The list of threatened animals killed by logging goes on and on. These are animals that are only just hanging in there by a thread. In fact, a recent report by the Wilderness Society has found that there are 48 threatened animals and birds living in areas that are subject to state-run logging operations.
We have utterly weak environment laws, including outdated, destructive logging laws—the Regional Forest Agreements—that are failing to protect nature. The Labor, the Liberal and the National parties are standing by as the precious natural places that provide homes for our threatened animals are destroyed. Instead of leadership that recognises that our homes, our biodiversity, our towns, our communities, our country, our planet and our human civilisation is at risk, we have a Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who brings a lump of coal into parliament, and an opposition leader, Bill Shorten, who walks the line on climate change, saying one thing in Victoria and another thing in Queensland, and whose climate policy does not mention coal and, in short, is a dog's breakfast of Liberal leftovers.
The Greens are the only party that is committed to taking real action for a safe future for all of us. Our plan includes new powerful environment laws and serious money to protect nature and restore our damaged environments. It includes an end to native forest logging; scrapping our logging laws, the Regional Forest Agreements; and shifting 100 per cent of wood production to plantations, which actually isn't going to be that hard given that we are currently at 88 per cent. It includes 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030, including support for households and businesses for solar systems and batteries. It includes phasing out the burning and export of thermal coal, supported by a $1 billion transition plan for workers; the building of a solar export industry, including a direct interconnector into Asia; exporting renewably-generated hydrogen; and a shift to electric cars with all new car sales being electric vehicles by 2030. What's more, our plan will create 170,000 new jobs and drive Australia towards an economy free of carbon pollution by 2040.
The choice is clear: the Greens are the only party that has a plan to tackle climate change and protect nature. We're the only party that does not take donations from the coal industry, the gas industry, the oil industry or the logging industry or donations from any large corporations. We are the only party that will hold the major parties to account.
At this coming election, it's vital to keep Greens in our parliament. It's vital to re-elect me in the Senate in Victoria. It's vital to re-elect all Greens who are up for election—Senator Faruqi in New South Wales, Senator Waters in Queensland, Senator Steele-John in Western Australia, Senator Hanson-Young in South Australia and Senator McKim in Tasmania—and also to elect more Greens like Steph Hodgins-May in Macnamara, Julian Burnside in Kooyong and Adam Pulford in Wills, just to name a few of the great candidates who are up against MPs from the Labor and Liberal parties who vote for coal, who vote for native forest logging and who vote for climate change. If you care about tackling climate change, if you care about our native forests, if you care about threatened animals, if you care about our water security and if you care about your children's and your grandchildren's futures, you have to vote Greens.
Senate adjourned at 22:28