I'd just like to commence by expressing my appreciation to senators for their understanding of my absence yesterday and my particular thanks to the Deputy President for standing in for me during the day.
I rise to deliver a contribution on behalf of the opposition today. I'll flag at the outset that the opposition will be supporting the Emergency Response Bill 2019, with amendments. Those amendments reflect some important commitments that we have secured from the government overnight, and I'll detail them over the course of this contribution.
To begin with I think it's worth re-emphasising the importance of governments of all persuasions, at all levels of government, not only taking action to deal with the consequences of natural disasters but also taking steps to minimise the impact of those disasters before they occur. Unfortunately, as a result of climate change, we do face the certainty of increased frequency and scale of natural disasters into the future.
Already this year we are seeing bushfires strike many parts of our country, including my home state of Queensland, in areas that have not traditionally experienced them. Of course, every summer that comes round we see floods, cyclones and bushfires right across the country. As I say, as a result of climate change, it is likely that these types of disasters will occur.
We can have a debate at another time about other steps that the government should be taking to address climate change, but I just want to focus today on the matters before us with this bill. The bill, as it was originally framed, would have provided an increase to funding by the federal government for disaster recovery efforts, but a concern that the opposition has had from the time we saw this bill was that the bill in its original form was inadequate in providing funding for what's known as mitigation, or resilience, infrastructure and efforts—things that can be done to minimise the impact of disasters when they do hit. I'm talking about things like flood levees, seawalls, firebreaks and higher dam walls, along with a range of other activities that can be undertaken to minimise the impact of natural disasters when they hit.
Labor has had concerns for some time that the government has not adequately invested in disaster mitigation—that is, works to reduce the impact of disasters before they actually hit. In fact, in Queensland there's been a debate going on for some time to build a flood levee in the city of Rockhampton, which has experienced, I think, three floods over the last seven or eight years. Obviously, building flood levees in areas that are prone to natural disasters reduces their impact. It doesn't mean that the flood doesn't occur or that rain doesn't fall, but it does mean that when we do experience floods—and, as I say, they are likely to be more frequent in the future—businesses don't get wiped out, homes don't get inundated and people don't experience a massive emotional toll, and that's not to mention the financial toll that homeowners, businesses, insurers and taxpayers incur in rectifying the damage that results from natural disasters.
And premiums then come down.
I'll take the interjection from Senator Smith. One of the other benefits that are very often said to arise from investing in mitigation is that it is something that can put downward pressure on insurance premiums. I know Senator Green in particular has done a lot of work recently in northern Australia to highlight the exorbitant premiums that northern Australians have to pay. In fact, many people in North Queensland have difficulty even getting insurance in the first place. The more that we can invest in mitigation and reduce the impact of disasters, the more it is likely that some moderation will be put on insurance premium rises into the future.
As I say, Labor has called for further investment in mitigation for some time. We're not alone in doing that. A range of stakeholders have called for the government to make greater investment in disaster mitigation—everyone from insurers through local governments to the Productivity Commission, which handed down an important report on this matter in 2014. Just in the last fortnight we heard the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, also call for greater investment in helping communities prepare for and protect against the effects of natural disasters.
I'm happy to foreshadow that the opposition will be moving a number of amendments to the bill which have been agreed with the government. Under the commitments that we have extracted from the government, the government will increase the funding available under its proposed Emergency Response Fund from $150 million a year, which is what was in the original bill, to $200 million per year. As a result of that commitment, we have an increase of $50 million per annum to be spent by the government on disaster matters. More importantly, the government has agreed that that extra $50 million will be dedicated to improving disaster preparedness by funding a range of risk reduction works. That's a 33 per cent increase in the funds available that Labor has secured. This guarantees funding for mitigation works before the disasters hit. That extra $50 million could be used to pay for flood levees, seawalls, firebreaks and other infrastructure, which would reduce the financial and emotional toll of future disasters on residents, businesses and taxpayers.
Just to be clear, the bill in its original form established a new emergency response fund which would allocate up to $150 million per year for disaster recovery payments, for disaster recovery works. That will increase to $200 million as a result of the commitments that Labor has secured. The extra $50 million will go towards disaster preparedness or mitigation. That's an important improvement on the original bill, because, although the bill as it was originally structured did allow for spending from the Emergency Response Fund for mitigation works, that spending would occur only after a disaster hit. It always seemed to the opposition to be an absurd proposition that this fund would be used to build flood levees, cyclone shelters, fire breaks and other kinds of things, but only after a flood or cyclone or a bushfire had hit. By making these amendments we're making a distinct improvement to the bill by making sure not only that more funds will be available but that those funds can build the flood levees, seawalls, firebreaks and other things before a disaster hits, and therefore actually save money and save the emotional toll of these disasters into the future. Labor believes that, as a result of the commitments that we've extracted from the government, Australian communities will be better prepared to face the threats from natural disasters both this summer and summers—or winters, for that matter, if natural disasters hit then—into the future.
The other commitment that Labor has extracted from the government is a commitment to a new $50 million investment to upgrade TAFE facilities, to be matched by participating states and territories. Labor, along with a range of other stakeholders, has obviously been critical of this government's cuts to skills, to TAFE funding and to TAFE infrastructure across the country. We've managed to extract a commitment from the government to a new $50 million investment to upgrade TAFE facilities. That will be matched by participating states and territories. After years of federal government neglect, this funding which has been secured by Labor will be an important shot in the arm for TAFE facilities around Australia.
On the basis of those commitments around the amendments to this bill regarding disaster mitigation, and on the basis of the additional commitment in relation to upgrading TAFE facilities, Labor will support the government's Emergency Response Fund Bill in the Senate today, with those amendments that I have foreshadowed.
The other point that I should make is that this bill, as well as establishing the new Emergency Response Fund, among another things abolishes the Education Investment Fund. This is not something Labor is happy about. In fact, this is the third attempt that the government has made to close the Education Investment Fund, having previously tried to do so to establish the Asset Recycling Fund and to fund what it said were shortfalls in NDIS funding. The Education Investment Fund was an important creation of the Rudd and Gillard governments which did fund university and TAFE facilities around the country. We remain extremely disappointed and we think it's a retrograde step for the government to abolish this Education Investment Fund. But in light of the commitments that we have secured from the government in relation to disaster mitigation funding and an increased quantum for the emergency fund overall, in addition to the new commitment around TAFE investment, on balance we believe that the bill should be supported, with those amendments that I have foreshadowed. I look forward to making additional contributions later in the debate.
I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019. This bill really does lay bare the Liberal-National government's logic-free approach to the wicked problems of our time. With this bill they are attempting to abolish Australia's only—I repeat, only—TAFE and university infrastructure fund, to create an opaque Emergency Response Fund, without a cent for disaster resilience or any action on the climate crisis. What a mess!
Of course we must fund disaster relief, but the Greens will not be party to the government's long-running campaign to cut our universities and TAFE to the bone, while their climate inaction endangers all of us. In early spring we've seen bushfires rage across New South Wales and Queensland, destroying rainforest habitats and homes. As former Fire and Rescue NSW Commissioner Greg Mullins identified this year, what we are seeing is the effects of climate change putting more and more people and homes at risk. We cannot shy away from the fact that communities are hurting because the government isn't acting on the climate emergency. People are hurting. Lives and homes are being tragically lost. Animals are suffering and dying in droughts and bushfires and the intense heat. I'm frightened by the thought of what this summer will bring. The Australian seasonal bushfire outlook reports that the entire New South Wales coast in my beloved home state has above-normal fire potential for this coming summer. We've had long periods of very low rainfall, drought in almost the entire state, and high temperatures are expected statewide.
While the government persists in doing nothing to address the climate crisis, we know that unseasonal catastrophic weather events will only happen again and again with more intensity and more terrifying consequences. This throws into stark relief the lack of attention to mitigation and disaster resilience in the government's efforts. My colleague Senator Rice put it well last year when she said that, if we throw money at the consequences of the climate crisis without addressing the cause, we might as well be putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. As it stands, only three per cent of disaster relief funding is spent on prevention. It is important that we are equipped to respond to disasters when they happen and support communities during and in the aftermath, but to so massively underfund mitigation and resilience gets the entire approach wrong and makes disaster relief efforts less effective when they are really needed.
We just heard that Labor have done a deal with the Liberal Party to put some funding in the ERF for resilience. But $50 million is a drop in the ocean. They are giving up $4 billion of the Education Investment Fund that our TAFEs and universities desperately need in exchange for a mere $50 million, which is not going to go far at all.
I note the Insurance Council of Australia agree that a focus on disaster preparedness is appropriate and sorely needed. They've called for funds to be redirected to mitigation and resilience infrastructure projects to actually prevent natural disasters and make our homes and businesses more resilient. But what's in this fund for climate change action? Zero. The government has gone right ahead; it has ignored this advice and the Productivity Commission's recommendation that the Commonwealth invests at least $200 million a year in mitigation and resilience projects. They've said $200 million; $50 million is but a small portion of that.
I want to be clear: natural disasters and emergencies cause immense suffering, and responding to that suffering quickly and properly is absolutely vital. But instead of committing to resilience and well-managed disaster response, or actually acting on the root causes of why these disasters are occurring, the government has brought forward this bill, which fails on the resilience front, fails on the climate action front and lacks all of the appropriate transparency and safeguards in its spending on disaster response.
Having seen the government's mismanagement of the drought relief fund and the embarrassment of their so-called drought envoy, are we meant to trust that a fund administered by Minister Littleproud, who seems to be in two minds as to whether climate change is human made or not, is going to be the right thing for the community? I think not. The government cannot escape the fact that natural disasters are being fuelled by their big fossil fuel donors who are destroying our planet. If the government had a shred of decency, of care for generations to come, they would fund disaster response by making the polluters pay instead of once again gutting our education funding.
Equally as galling as the government's willingness to roll over backwards for their big polluting mates is their continued cut after cut of vital education. Universities Australia are right to call this a raid on Australia's last remaining fund for building education and research infrastructure. In fact, the government is using this bill to abolish the Education Infrastructure Fund altogether. I foreshadow that the Greens will be moving amendments to try to make sure that this doesn't happen, that this vital fund is not abolished by this government, which attacks public education every single day. We saw just this week the passing of the bill that puts extra onus, extra tax and extra levies on universities and students.
The Education Infrastructure Fund is dedicated to providing ongoing capital funding for infrastructure in universities, vocational education and research. During its lifetime, the Education Infrastructure Fund supported more than 200 projects and allocated $4.2 billion in funding, including significant grants for regional universities, and I note that the Labor Party has come to some agreement with the government on some funding going to TAFE. Fifty million dollars, though? Of course they desperately need money, but $50 million in exchange for losing $4 billion? That is a bad deal!
Before it was punitively frozen by Tony Abbott's Liberal government, the EIF helped keep our education and research at world-class levels around the country, contributing to laboratories, teaching and learning facilities, and providing seed funding that attracted significant other investment in research and infrastructure. It's particularly interesting to see the government talk up their support for regional universities while abolishing the Education Investment Fund, which has meaningfully built research and teaching capacity outside city centres. Personally, I've seen the impact of the Education Investment Fund in my academic career, and in Port Macquarie where I lived and worked. The fund contributed to the Port Macquarie Joint Health Education Facility, which is training doctors to meet demand for care in rural and regional areas. While travelling around New South Wales, from Newcastle, to Lismore, to Bathurst and to Wollongong I hear from the sector the same thing they told the government the last time they tried to abolish the Education Investment Fund: this funding is necessary. The Liberals and Nationals ignored them then and they're ignoring them again now—and so is the Labor Party.
The Greens are committed to reopening the Education Investment Fund as part of our plan to make world-class TAFE and university free for all, throughout people's lives. And let's make no mistake: the government's malice towards universities and the vital research and education they conduct is not a new phenomenon. I note with particular bemusement Minister Littleproud's attempts to boast of the government's education spending while introducing this bill to cut education funding. The reality is that unis, TAFEs and research have all suffered under this government. We have seen a cut of $2.1 billion in real terms in funding for student places in the last two years alone.
Not satisfied with cuts which have dashed the hopes of young Australians wanting to attend uni, this government has taken the hatchet to research funding. After $3.9 billion in cuts between 2011 and 2012, and 2016 and 2017, the Liberals went on to cut $345 million in research funding from universities over the four years from the 2017 MYEFO. This cut hit regional universities the hardest, including $91 million in cuts to universities in my home state of New South Wales. At the same time, we've seen TAFE being slowly destroyed by the government's neglect, a lack of funding and privatisation, with the latest data showing student numbers have dropped two per cent and that training hours are down six per cent at a time where we're meant to be addressing the skills crisis and the jobs shortage.
The bottom line is that pitting vital education funding against disaster relief will compound the harms this government has already done to our disaster readiness and education. We need disaster relief funded by big polluters, real investment in resilience and solutions to the wicked complex problems of the climate crisis that only university research can provide. For them to do that vital work, they need infrastructure and funding. The Greens will oppose this bill, and I move the following second reading amendment:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate
(a) notes that the fossil fuel industry is contributing to climate change, leading to more frequent and more intense natural disasters;
(b) notes that imposing a 10 per cent royalty on projects subject to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax would raise $5 billion in real terms over two years;
(c) is of the opinion that the Education Investment Fund should not be abolished and should only be used for education and research infrastructure; and
(d) calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to place a Commonwealth royalty on oil and gas projects to create a resilience and emergency relief fund for natural disasters."
I rise to speak on the Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 and the Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2019. And here we are again, with a government that does not accept climate science raiding a fund that was set up for other good purposes in order to mop up after crippling disasters while refusing to take action on what is causing those disasters. What an absolute insult to those communities that are already facing the ravages of extremely damaging bushfires. In my home state of Queensland these were a week out of winter and in areas that had never burned before. This government doesn't even have the decency to have a consultation with some climate scientists and actually fund a climate action plan. Instead, what they're now doing is trying to bribe people by raiding a fund that was set up to support regional universities to build institutions to help invest in the skills for those regions. The gall of this mob! Just when you think they can't find a new low, they manage to find one.
Of course we support funds for disaster relief, but this bill is not the way to go about it. Why do they have to raid funds for higher education to do disaster relief, when they're doing absolutely nothing about disaster prevention or about resilience and preparedness or about adaptation and mitigation?
My colleague Senator Faruqi will be moving some very important amendments that ensure that we can do disaster relief whilst not raiding education funds. I urge the opposition and members of the crossbench to support those amendments. We have a chance to get this right. We have a chance to not only help prepare for but respond to natural disasters, which we know are going to get more and more frequent, more severe, more damaging, more wild and unpredictable, and we also have a chance to keep supporting those regional universities.
I want to begin formally by just acknowledging the seriousness of the issue we're debating today. Hundreds of people have lost their lives in this country dealing with these disasters, not only firefighters but all of our emergency response personnel. They are absolute heroes in our eyes, and I'm sure everyone agrees with that—not just the paid folk; of course, the volunteer firefighters and the other volunteer relief emergency personnel. Many of our community members have lost their homes. Some have lost their lives. People have lost their businesses, and communities have been ripped apart.
We know that these disaster events, these extreme weather events, are only going to get worse. We know that. The climate scientists are telling us that, but the government just will not listen. It's got a tin ear when it comes to science. I wonder what's blocking their ears? Gee, I think it's probably the millions of dollars in donations that flood into their pockets from the oil, coal and gas industries. We know that's why that they don't have a climate policy: they're being paid to not have a policy. It's absolutely disgusting, and that's why of course we're moving to abolish donations from the coal, oil and gas sector—a longstanding position of the Greens.
Resources being made available to support communities in crisis are of course critical. We want these communities to have the help and support they need, but this bill is not the right way to go about it. What this bill actually does is fulfil a long-held government promise to abolish the Education Investment Fund. This was a Tony Abbott idea back in that horror budget of 2014 where frontline services, community support services and help for the vulnerable—all of those things—were slashed, and remember: they sat there and smoked their cigars afterwards. This was one of those promises. This is an Abbott-era attack on the higher education sector that this government has continued, and now they're trying to deliver on. What is incredible and very disappointing is that it seems they've now got Labor Party support to do just that.
The Education Investment Fund was created by Labor in the Rudd years for good reason: to provide ongoing capital investment in regional universities, in vocational education, in research and in all of those job-creating skills investments. This fund has already provided funding for a range of really important projects, a joint health education facility at Port Macquarie; the Australian Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Education at Charles Darwin University; a new space at Newcastle CBD campus; and, in my home state, at JCU, The Science Place. How interesting that we see an investment in a science place by a fund, and of course the government wants to abolish that very fund. This government really doesn't like science much. But the point is that this fund has been providing essential funds and essential infrastructure to those regional cities and towns to help us be ready for this century's economy. This government, of course, wants to gut it.
It's no surprise that Universities Australia have called this a raid on Australia's last remaining fund for building education and research infrastructure. Well, why is the government forcing the parliament to make a choice between two noble aims? Why are we being asked to choose between support for the higher education sector and for investing in those skills that we know our regional economies need to be ready for the economy that's changing under our feet? Why are we being forced to choose between that and vital disaster relief funding? What kind of amoral government would actually stand here and propose that?
Sadly, this is not the first time they have done this. We saw the same strategy with the drought fund where they're raiding infrastructure funding—again, another worthy objective—to put into drought funding. Of course it is only going to trickle out in a tiny amount while the government continues to ignore the climate crisis, which is driving the drought and making these natural disasters worse.
With that investment we could actually achieve the objectives of supporting higher education and regional communities and being ready for natural disasters and responding to them, if we simply raised the rates of the PRRT. Why are we not making the big oil and gas companies pay their fair share?
We all know that the PRRT, the petroleum resource rent tax, is one of the most rorted taxes that we have on our books, with many billions of credits outstanding. They effectively don't pay a cent. What an absolute joke! With a mere 10 per cent increase and a new Commonwealth royalty regime on those oil and gas companies, you could raise $5 billion in two years. That's more than this fund in just two years. Not only would you be reducing the inputs to the climate crisis; you could do the real investment in community resilience and preparedness, as well as response, for these incredibly cruel and indiscriminate natural disasters. It's the concept of actually making the polluter pay to prevent the problem that's causing so much heartache for everyone that we have always backed and that we think could have been employed really usefully here.
The other point is that this fund is solely focused on mitigation. It doesn't do anything about preparedness. I acknowledge that Labor say they will move an amendment. Unfortunately, I haven't actually seen it yet, and neither has our spokesperson on the matter. Hopefully, we will see that amendment soon, but I understand that in it they have an extra $50 million a year to do what I think Senator Murray Watt explained was some prevention works. That's a step in the right direction, but what an absolute drop in the ocean it is. You're not going to be able to do anything with fifty million bucks. The phrase 'cheap date' comes to mind. We need a serious investment in community resilience and disaster preparedness and in genuine prevention and mitigation of what's causing this, which of course is the climate crisis.
The stakeholders to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill didn't think much of the bill either. The Insurance Council, who are of course experts in analysing and managing financial risk, particularly in relation to the extreme weather events that are climate driven, said:
Whilst a cliche, the phrase prevention is better than the cure, is the rule in most policy areas, except it would seem in disaster management, where spending levels for mitigation account for 3% of spending compared to disaster response at 97%.
But we know that a commitment to trying to prevent these sorts of natural disasters would require this government to take the climate emergency seriously. Don't hold your breath, folks. It would also require a genuine commitment to public infrastructure spending. But, whilst they have all of the ingredients laid out before them—with record-low interest rates it's a perfect time for government to borrow and invest in infrastructure to provide the community with the services they deserve, and what a fantastic stimulus and job-creating measure it would be—the government will not touch public infrastructure funding. My point is proven by the fact that they just gutted the infrastructure fund to service their drought fund, again setting up a false dichotomy. They're two noble things which both should have been funded.
The climate emergency is real. It is driving these extreme weather events. Rainforest in South-East Queensland was on fire a week out of winter. That is unprecedented. Northern New South Wales is still on fire. This is happening earlier than it ever has before, and the scientists are telling us this is a harbinger of what's to come, and come more severely, frequently and erratically. It's not like we haven't been told. Why is this government still refusing to act on the scientific advice that could keep our community safe and protect our natural world? It could generate more jobs, not just through a public infrastructure boom, which the Greens support, but through investing in the energy transition that's already underway. It's already creating fantastic jobs in those regions, particularly here in Queensland, where we desperately need those jobs. Why on earth would you gut funding for the skills those communities need as that transition continues to happen?
That's why we're seeking to amend this bill today—and my colleague Senator Faruqi has outlined the nature of our amendments. We don't think the money should come from this education fund. We think it should come from increasing the take from oil and gas companies. There are myriad other sources of revenue for this natural disaster resilience fund; higher education should not be one of them.
Again I note that we haven't yet received Labor's amendments relating to the additional money that they say has now sweetened the deal for them. They used to not like this legislation, before the election, but it seems they've changed their mind. We're very keen to see the actual detail of what's got them over the line, because I would have thought that funding higher education should have been something that the Labor Party stood by, although I do recall then Prime Minister Gillard seeking to cut, I think it was $2.3 billion, from the higher education sector, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.
I also recall that before the election the shadow minister for education described this bill as pitting two worthy aims against each other. I'm not quite clear on what's changed and why you've decided to throw education under the bus just because this bill has got a scary title, but I would urge you, at this late stage, to consider supporting our amendments. We can achieve both objectives here. We can have a natural disaster resilience fund and strong support for the higher education sector. Don't let them make you choose. Don't play right into their hands and just facilitate their agenda. The idea of being an opposition is to oppose. We really do encourage you to see that you can achieve two objectives here and you don't simply have to be Liberal light.
Sadly, this is not the first time that we've seen the Liberal government's agenda being waved through this chamber. We saw the $158 billion of tax cuts, most of which went to folks that didn't really need the help. That was waved through by the so-called opposition. They caved in on the temporary exclusion orders, which gave yet more powers to the home affairs minister. Boy, is that going on to his head. They caved in on the ag gag laws, which put in place draconian antiprotest laws, which have been backed in by our Queensland state government, because apparently protest is illegal now. No-one's allowed to have an opinion that opposes the government—certainly not on climate change. And of course they caved in on the drought bill, which was funded by raiding $4 billion from the national infrastructure budget. It's very disappointing that we now see that, once again, the so-called opposition are going to cave in and raid a very worthy education fund, which has already provided some great investment in regional Australia. They're going to cave in and wave this through.
Please reconsider, and please have a close look at the amendments proposed by Senator Faruqi for the Greens. We can have natural disaster preparedness and resilience and response funding, and we can also have a strong higher education sector. I'm not quite sure what parallel universe we're now in, where you think that's a choice that you need to make.
We here at the Greens will always be strong supporters of not just mopping up after a disaster but actually investing in preventing them, investing in not only community resilience and preparedness but the mitigation of what's causing these natural disasters. We are in a climate emergency. We are sleepwalking to our own demise. We are losing species at a rate that is just criminal, in my view. We've lost half the coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef, one of the largest and most ancient living structures on this planet. I don't think we have the right to wreck the natural world in the way that we have been just to make a few rich people richer. It is absolutely disgusting. It's not just about the impacts on nature; it's also about the impacts on communities: people's homes being flooded and burned; communities ripped apart; the suicide rates for our land managers off the charts.
What on earth is it going to take for this government to get with the program, accept the climate science and do what's necessary to protect the community, not to mention nature? We know you're not keen on nature, but for goodness sake: regional Australia is desperate for a climate plan. We just heard the head of the National Farmers Federation calling for climate action on national radio this morning and pointing out that renewable energy might be an additional income stream for farmers, which the Greens have long supported and proposed. But this government is so in the pocket of big oil, coal and gas that it just will not see reason. It will not see the science and it will not stand with what those communities desperately need—a real drought plan, a real climate plan, and real investment in educational institutions in those regional areas that create jobs and create the skills that we are going to need.
As the rest of the world continues on its journey to become a clean energy economy, we are getting left behind. We are now on fire and this government wants to raid an education fund to do some mop-up work after the fact while doing absolutely nothing to prevent what is causing these natural disasters in the first place. I believe that this is criminal; I think it's criminal negligence. And when we see other countries and governments around the world, even of conservative persuasions, accepting climate science, the government have no cover anymore. There is no excuse for them to try and say that this is a political issue. The climate crisis is so far above politics, it is ridiculous. For heaven's sake, please stop being blinded by the dirty money that you're getting from these big multinational oil, coal and gas companies to fund your re-election campaigns—and that goes for both sides of politics. Both sides, sadly, took $4 million over the past five years as part of the broader $100 million from big corporates since 2012. Dirty money is ruining the policymaking potential of this parliament, and it is blinding the government to where their real obligations lie. They should be protecting communities, protecting the planet and actually planning for the future. Surely the job of government is to plan and prepare?
This bill is all about mopping up whilst raiding another fund that would actually help communities develop their skills. This is an abomination. We will always support disaster response funding, but you don't get it from wrecking and gutting higher education and you don't stop those natural disasters by ignoring the climate crisis that we're facing and trying to just pray the problem away. Each to their own, but that is not a climate policy. The government can't just pray for rain and pretend that climate change isn't happening and that it's not anthropogenic. And they can't pretend that they don't have the power, as the government of Australia, to actually do something to fix it. Please wake up.
I have been so impressed by the community response to the climate crisis. People are starting to feel their power. I hope the government are paying attention. We've got more and more folk hitting the streets. They can see what these natural disasters are doing to our communities. They can see what it's doing to nature and to our biodiversity. They can see the potential for prosperity and fairness and job creation in a clean energy economy. They want action on climate change. They don't want the big coal multinationals to be making decisions about the whole country anymore. They want their democracy back. That's what we support, and we will continue to stand with those folks who are hitting the streets, desperate for their government to do the right thing. The government has a chance today to vote to not gut education, to invest not just in natural disaster response but in mitigation, prevention, preparedness, resilience—all of those things that our communities deserve from its national government. Please give the dirty donations back and please start looking at the evidence and doing the right thing.
It's a pleasure to follow my colleagues Senator Faruqi and Senator Waters in contributing to this debate on the Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 and Emergency Response Fund Bill (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019—even if, after quite a detailed investigation, it seems that Senator Waters is in fact the source of my current deep morass of man flu which I'm struggling against. Yes, 'morass of man flu' is now in the Hansard. We can all be happy! I noted during Senator Faruqi's contribution the very apt observation that this seems to be the embodiment of the logic-free approach to politics that is pursued by this government and its coalition partners. Not a surprising occurrence given, I believe, last time I checked, logic-free politics was the dictionary subheading to the National Party of Australia. You can see the intellectual vacuity dripping throughout this entire legislative proposal with the National Party's particularly distinctive pen all over it.
Considering how I would approach my contribution to this debate, I couldn't seem to go past a moment that I experienced a couple of weeks ago while taking the flight from Perth to Canberra to reconvene for the first parliamentary sitting week of the year. I'm a proud Western Australian. I live upon the land of the Noongar Whadjuk people and I always am cognisant that, as I move from WA to the ACT, I pass over thousands of hectares of land the sovereignty over which has never been ceded and that was sung, curated and cultivated for countless generations before any white person stepped foot on the shores of this ancient continent. On the recommendation of a good friend, at this particular time I had downloaded and was listening to the, I think it's fair to say, seminal work by Bruce Pascoe: Dark Emu. I would recommend it to anybody in this chamber who hasn't had the opportunity to explore it. In his work Pascoe explores in great detail the intricate agricultural arrangements particularly used by First Nations peoples in cultivating and propagating the land on which they have lived for almost 100,000 years.
Just before I'd taken off, news had come of a fire that had broken out in Perth, and we were staring down the barrel of that first wave of what turned into horrific bushfires across the states of New South Wales and Queensland. I could not escape the realisation of the damage that we have done to the delicate ecosystems of our ancient continent. Nor could I escape the profound learnings about that ecosystem, held by First Nations peoples, that we so arrogantly and ignorantly dismissed upon the arrival of settler populations in Australia. For hundreds of years, Australia has played catch-up to that ignorance and has borne the cost of that ignorance. And we see that playing its part too in the various natural disasters which now plague our communities. It is the price we pay for being a nation in some ways founded upon a baseless belief in the superiority of the white imperial British class.
As a former university student, as a young person—although I'm now informed that, as a 25-year-old, I no longer technically fit the category of young person—and as somebody whose friends and family members will experience the brunt of climate change and the natural disasters that are so intimately linked with it, I've got to look upon this bill and just wonder where the hell we've come to in this country on this question. I mean, fire and flood, natural disasters, are so intimately part of the Australian experience. The devastation they've wrought upon communities is so well known that nobody in the Australian community would resent a government taking action to address those issues. But that's not what this bill does.
This bill seeks to ram-raid education infrastructure spending in this country and funnel it into an opaque scheme which doesn't do a thing to address mitigation or to address the great big flaming elephant in the room: climate change. The National Party might not like to hear it, the Liberal Party might not like to hear it and their donors most bloody certainly don't like to hear it, but climate change is driving these natural disasters. That ain't a question of political position; it's a question of scientific fact. So, to put forward a bill such as this, which seeks to address the issue of natural disaster emergency response and funding but does not address climate change, is rather akin to putting a really expensive bandaid on the crack in a dam wall. It just won't do the job.
We have many debates in this place on climate and many debates on the influence of corporate donations on the major parties. Senator Waters is absolutely right to draw the chamber's attention to the reality that the tin ear of the major parties when it comes to climate change is due to those canals being stuffed with the cash of their fossil fuel mates. There will come a time when each of you, in your own ways, will have to confront and come to terms with the reality that you were warned, that you were told, that people made great effort to present to you the evidence of the dangers inherent in your inaction and you decided to nothing, simply because you wanted to retain your own personal position of power.
You will have to look your kids in the eye—you will have to look your grandkids in the eye—and explain to them why you decided to make the problem worse, why you decided to walk alongside the great conflagration of global climate crisis and, instead of pitching in, instead of doing what you could to make the situation better, decided to make it worse. And those members of the Nationals who so often proclaim their undying service to the rural and regional community of Australia will have to look farm family after farm family in the eye and explain just why continuing to take money from the gas giants and the coal merchants, continuing your cosy bedroom relationship with the Liberal Party, was more important to you than protecting the viability of farmlands that they've worked for generations. That will be the explanation that you'll have to give.
On the other side of the chamber we've got a party that is caught between their pre-election flirtations with political courage and their current imbibing of that swill of post-election defeat, compromise based miasma. You don't look like eels, but you're doing a really good impression of them—you can almost hear the jellied spines jiggling. I've seen some crappy deals made in my time in this place, as brief as it has been. But I've got to say, $50 million in return for $4.5 billion is one of the more badly calculated. Imagine the debate you could be having in this place if you weren't undermined by Fitzgibbon in the other place.
Order! You should refer to members in the other place by their appropriate title.
I can't remember the seat he represents.
You don't have to; you can refer to him as Mr Fitzgibbon, with appropriate courtesy.
Mr Fitzgibbon, that'll do—that's all right?
Yes.
If anyone wants to tell me the seat he represents, I'll send him an apology basket. It's just a really sad thing at this particular moment in our history to see an opposition, so-called—and Senator Waters is right to remind you that the primary function, you'll be shocked to find out, of an opposition is in fact to oppose. It's a crazy, really strange notion. Can you guys actually remember what that's like? It's when the government, the Liberal Party, say something and, instead of saying, 'Yes, of course we'll go along with that,' you actually say no and you oppose. It's a fascinating concept. You should try it. You should give it a crack. You might like it. You might find it's not to your taste, but give it a go; it's fun to try new things every now and again. I am wearing a rather outrageous tie today, for instance. If I can do that, surely you could give being an opposition a go. We're rather enjoying it—Senator Di Natale is doing a fantastic job—but you could pitch in. You could give us a hand every now and again, just in that spirit of mateship and working together that we so often claim to be part of the Australian spirit. I'll leave it with you as a proposal.
Australia has had an education investment fund in one form or another since 1957. It has enjoyed bipartisan support all the way back to Menzies as a recognition of the inherent difficulties of funding higher education infrastructure, particularly on a needs basis or through other mechanisms. To trash it in this way is an absolute disgrace. It has to be said—and I'm sure my colleague Senator Faruqi will agree—it's a bipartisan cultural approach, this trashing of higher education. I do not forget that, during their last dying days of government, the Gillard administration took the bold step of cutting $2.1 billion out of higher education in order to fund other forms of education—and if that policy decision doesn't send you the message that you really need to go back to school then it damn well should.
Higher education is a vital part of Australia's economic and cultural future. It's within these institutions that we as a community have the opportunity to gain new skills, to reflect on who we are and to build greater depth and breadth into our society. They are bloody great things. I know that's a radical statement for some people in here. There seems to be a reflexive disdain towards university students and university institutions from some quarters of this place, which I just think is absolutely ridiculous. If you look at the economic future of this country, it is in the investment of our community in our brains, in the thinking and caring economy. We can do that work only if we have high-quality institutions and infrastructure. We've spent too long banging around education in the higher education space as a political pinata. It has spent too long as a piggy bank to be raided when something more politically fortuitous comes along. We have to re-elevate higher education to a position of sacred political status. It should be bipartisan that we strive to have the most expert and inclusive higher education system in the world.
And, while we're at it, we should do that commonsense and most fair of things and remove tuition fees from our university system and structure, because they are not fair. It should not be countenanced that future generations are forced to go into debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars while seeking an education from institutions which, thanks to pieces of legislation like this, are of poorer and poorer quality and when they are educated by staff who, despite their excellence and passion, are undermined continually by a system and culture of contract work which increasingly seeks to atomise our national higher education system. In saying that, I want to pay tribute to the wonderful work done by the national higher education union in advocating for the staff who make our higher education institutions what they are.
Climate change is the fundamental test. On that question and on the action that comes from that rides whether or not we are able to look future generations in the face—whether or not we are able to pass to them a community, a society and a land that are worth passing on. There are often howls of faux outrage when Greens in this place mention the connection between climate change and extreme weather events, such as fires. 'Oh,' it is said, 'Now is not the time, as communities are burning.' We see the spectre of that NRA-esque argument which says that, in the aftermath of a school shooting, it's not the time to support or consider gun law reform. I fundamentally reject that. It is precisely the moment: when communities are suffering, we are called to act—not just to speak, not just to pray but to act. It's not just in the immediate moment, in the immediate relief of suffering, but to show by our actions that we're doing all we can, that we're expending every effort that we can, to prevent these kinds of disasters.
This bill does no such thing; this bill is testament to the logic-free politics that rule this place in relation to climate change and extreme weather events. We shall proudly oppose it. I thank the chamber for its time.
This Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 and the related bill are very much a positive move to help fund recovery and relief efforts after natural disasters in Australia which have a significant and catastrophic impact.
I might point out, though, as others have, that climate change is predicted to cause more frequent and severe storms, cyclones, droughts, floods and bushfires. So this fund will definitely be needed and, indeed, might be tapped out in future years. But, in creating this fund, the government is simply supplying a bandaid when it also needs to be doing far more to avoid the cause of catastrophes and to be more vigilant on climate change itself.
So, yes, my colleagues and I are 100 per cent supportive of building up an emergency fund—of course, provided that processes are put in place to ensure equitable distribution across Australia when it's needed most. I'm glad Senator Watt has spoken about the amendments Labor has negotiated with government, because we, like others, haven't seen them yet. He indicated that Labor has secured a deal to increase the funds disbursements by $50 million. Labor: surely you could have done much better than that! It's better than nothing, but as Senator Faruqi said, it's not a huge amount to deal with the substantial needs of the VET sector.
As Centre Alliance has made clear, we do not believe it was reasonable to create a fund which repurposed money from the lapsed Education Investment Fund without dedicating a good component of this $4 billion to boost vocational training. In fact, in my state of South Australia in particular, we very much have a dire shortage across many trades, and a lot of this could have been alleviated with a good proportion of this fund going to vocational education promotion, training and mentoring—and I know the situation that we have in South Australia is certainly not unique; it is in the rest of Australia as well.
So, yes, we do support a degree of repurposing of this fund. But we are disappointed that Labor didn't flex its muscle a little further and that we had no opportunity to move more funds towards vocational training.
I, of course, endorse the comments my colleague Senator Griff made to the chamber. I did want to expand on a couple of things. The first thing I'd like to do is talk about the abolishment of the education fund. As Senator Griff suggested, we have some grave concerns about the state of our vocational training system here in Australia. We would have hoped that there would have been more money allocated to education so that the split between the emergency fund and education was better proportioned. So I feel as though I do have to say something here in relation to the abolishment of this fund.
I note that Senator Carr is in London at this point in time, with the leave of the chamber. Senator Carr is a gentleman, in my view. He's a good man. He's old school. He's a man you can take on his word. He has been a great supporter of manufacturing, and his support for education has been strong and enduring. I want to make sure that the chamber is aware of his position. I do so because I know how strongly he feels about it. I know how strongly he feels about it because he wrote to me. Not only has he written to me twice this week, he called me from London at some ungodly hour of the morning. So I think it's proper that I at least let his views be known. In fact, he did put something out into the media recently, and I'll just read from that article. He wrote:
The Educational Investment Fund was created by the former Labor government in 2008. To date it has funded the development of research infrastructure and provided for the refurbishment of universities and TAFE colleges through 71 projects worth $7bn in new investment.
The EIF has lain dormant since the election of the Abbott government. Coalition governments twice have tried to abolish it, without success.
But now, for the third time, the Morrison government wants to shut down the EIF and transfer its $4bn balance to a new emergency response fund, no doubt calculating it can take advantage of high public awareness of recent natural disasters in Queensland and NSW.
The need to fund emergency responses properly is not disputed. This does not mean, however, that the right way to do it is to grab whatever pot of cash lies conveniently to hand, especially when it means punishing universities that are so vital to the economies and resilience of regional Australia. Raiding the EIF is the fiscal equivalent of raiding a piggy bank without thought for how its owner will be deprived by the loss of its contents.
That was Senator Carr. I would also like to seek leave of the chamber to table a letter that Senator Carr wrote to me on this topic, again just so his views are known.
Leave granted.
He didn't send it to me.
Well, I'm not sure why he didn't send it to you, Senator Gallagher, but he was clearly concerned. I think it's appropriate to make sure his views are represented. I'm not even sure, when we divide on this, whether Senator Carr might have crossed the floor on it. The fact that he rang me twice in one week at 2 am or 4 am his time tells me he cares about this quite a lot, because he doesn't ring me often.
I'd like to go now to a point. We are abolishing an education fund for good purpose. I want to talk about what Senator Waters said when she talked about the oil and gas industry. Basically she said we have two noble aims here. I think she's correct. I think most people would agree she's correct. I want to go to her point about oil and gas not bearing the load. Of course, in the oil and gas industry, there are two tax elements. We have both the company tax and PRRT. I want to advise the chamber that, in terms of corporate tax—a bit of a shocker really—according to tax transparency data, over four years ExxonMobil earned $33 billion in revenue and—
Bugger all! Sweet bugger all!
Sorry, you're wrong, Senator Whish-Wilson. I won't repeat the terms you are saying, but it's not nothing. There was zero tax paid in that time. That's not a good return for the taxpayer. Origin Energy earned $51 billion and paid about $108 million in tax—that's over four years. Revenue for Shell was $52 billion and they paid $1.1 billion in tax. If I go to figures for 2016-17, the three large entities of ExxonMobil Australia, Chevron Australia Holdings and ConocoPhillips Australia Gas Holdings had a combined turnover of $11.6 billion and they paid—let's guess; maybe Senator Whish-Wilson would like to interject how much corporate tax they paid.
Bugger all!
It was zero. In terms of PRRT across these three entities, again, Senator Whish-Wilson, maybe you can interject and tell me how much tax they might have payed.
Sweet bugger all!
Zero is the answer. Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. They get to take our finite resources—they extract it and export it—and Australians get pretty much nothing in return. Compare that to what happens with Equinor in Norway. They are a Norwegian state-owned company. In 2018, Equinor paid $22 billion into consolidated revenue. They also paid environmental taxes and fees of about $1 billion. And, because it's a state-owned company, the dividend Equinor paid to the Norwegian government was about $3 billion, which is a huge amount of money. This dwarfs the quantum being talked about in this chamber today.
If we had a proper tax arrangement in respect of oil and gas, we wouldn't be having this debate about how we split education and how we split emergency relief funding, because we would be swimming in money. The finance minister is sitting there; he's listening intently. I say: if Senator Cormann brings any legislation to this chamber that seeks to get more of what Australians deserve from their oil and gas, I will happily co-sponsor that. That's one of the problems we have. We are mucking around, playing around, moving money around, moving a very small pie around. I want a bigger pie. I want a tastier pie. While we spin our wheels while shifting around the size of the very small pie that we have, we are missing out on opportunity. We could have had both, is my point.
The new emergency fund is $150 million going to disaster recovery work. I welcome what Labor has put forward—not the quantum but the idea that $50 million will be put to preventative measures in respect of emergency funding. That is a good idea. Once again, I'm disappointed at the quantum, and I will be asking at the committee stage how it is that that money for the pre-emptive work will be distributed. You heard my colleague Senator Griff talking about the need for equity in respect of that.
Then we move to the $50 million to upgrade TAFE facilities. This is the area where Labor should be disappointed. I am happy to invite Senator Gallagher to crossbench negotiating school, because she desperately needs it. Think about the fact that a few months ago Senator Lambie secured $144 billion, just for Tasmania. In listening to Centre Alliance, the government is restructuring the oil and gas market—particularly the gas market—here in Australia, which is something that will benefit people on Newstart, retirees and people who are employed in jobs. It will also help businesses, small and large. In this $4 billion discussion, you managed to squeeze out $50 million. So, free crossbench negotiation training for you. If you want to pick up the phone, I know you've got—
Senator Patrick, could you please address your comments to the chair?
Through you, Chair, I advise that I am open to having Senator Gallagher call to get some assistance in how to properly get a good outcome in respect of dividing up pies, because we didn't get one here.
You got nothing.
Well, I'm hoping that South Australia will get something out of this. We will be supporting Labor's amendments because it's the least of two bad outcomes. But don't for a moment think that the quantum is wrong. There is a greater need in education than the $50 million that you have suggested. Senator Griff and I will certainly be advocating strongly to government to make sure much of that goes to SA, or as much as is properly distributed. We will be supporting Labor's amendments on this, but we are disappointed in the quantum that is going to education. It could have been much more, and for that we are disappointed.
I thank the Senate and I commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
The question is that the bills stand as printed.
by leave—I move amendments to the Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 on sheet 8789 together:
(1) Clause 14, page 13 (line 8), after "28", insert "or 28A".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(2) Clause 14, page 13 (line 13), after "32", insert "or 32A".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(3) Clause 20, page 18 (after line 29), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) The Emergency Management Minister may, on behalf of the Commonwealth:
(a) make an arrangement with; or
(b) make a grant of financial assistance to;
a person or body for:
(c) the carrying out of a project that is directed towards achieving any or all of the following:
(i) resilience to a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(ii) preparedness for a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(iii) reduction of the risk of a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(iv) the long-term sustainability of a community or communities in an area that is at risk of being affected (whether directly or indirectly) by a future natural disaster; or
(d) the provision of a service that is directed towards achieving any or all of the following:
(i) resilience to a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(ii) preparedness for a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(iii) reduction of the risk of a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(iv) the long-term sustainability of a community or communities in an area that is at risk of being affected (whether directly or indirectly) by a future natural disaster; or
(e) the adoption of technology that is directed towards achieving any or all of the following:
(i) resilience to a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(ii) preparedness for a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(iii) reduction of the risk of a future natural disaster that could affect an area (whether directly or indirectly);
(iv) the long-term sustainability of a community or communities in an area that is at risk of being affected (whether directly or indirectly) by a future natural disaster; or
(f) a matter that is incidental or ancillary to a matter mentioned in paragraph (c), (d) or (e).
Note: See also section 24 (constitutional limits).
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(4) Clause 20, page 18 (line 30), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(5) Clause 20, page 19 (line 1), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(6) Clause 20, page 19 (line 3), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(7) Clause 20, page 19 (line 4), omit "Subsection (1) does not", substitute "Subsections (1) and (1A) do not".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(8) Heading to clause 28, page 24 (line 18), at the end of the heading, add "—general".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(9) Clause 28, page 24 (line 22), omit "section 20", substitute "subsection 20(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(10) Clause 28, page 25 (line 3), omit "section 20", substitute "subsection 20(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(11) Clause 28, page 25 (line 9), omit "section 20", substitute "subsection 20(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(12) Clause 28, page 25 (line 20), omit "section 20", substitute "subsection 20(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(13) Clause 28, page 25 (line 31), omit "section 34", substitute "subsection 34(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(14) Page 26 (after line 9), after clause 28, insert:
28A Transfers from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account to the Home Affairs Emergency Response Fund Special Account—resilience etc.
Amounts payable under arrangements
(1) If:
(a) one or more arrangements have been, or will be, made under subsection 20(1A); and
(b) the Emergency Management Minister is satisfied that one or more amounts (the committed amounts) will become payable by the Commonwealth during a financial year under those arrangements;
the Emergency Management Minister may, during the financial year, request the Finance Minister to transfer a specified amount (which must equal the total of the committed amounts) from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account to the Home Affairs Emergency Response Fund Special Account.
(2) The Emergency Management Minister must not make more than one request under subsection (1) in relation to a particular amount that will become payable by the Commonwealth under a subsection 20(1A) arrangement.
(3) To avoid doubt, the Emergency Management Minister may make 2 or more requests under subsection (1) during a financial year.
Grants
(4) If the Emergency Management Minister decides that one or more grants should be made under subsection 20(1A) during a financial year to persons other than a State or Territory, the Emergency Management Minister may, during the financial year, request the Finance Minister to transfer a specified amount (which must equal the total amount of the grants) from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account to the Home Affairs Emergency Response Fund Special Account.
Note: For a grant to a State or Territory, see section 32A (channelling State/Territory grants through the COAG Reform Fund).
(5) The Emergency Management Minister must not make more than one request under subsection (4) in relation to a particular subsection 20(1A) grant.
(6) To avoid doubt, the Emergency Management Minister may make 2 or more requests under subsection (4) during a financial year.
Transfer
(7) If:
(a) during a financial year, the Emergency Management Minister requests the Finance Minister under subsection (1) or (4) to transfer an amount from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account to the Home Affairs Emergency Response Fund Special Account; and
(b) the Finance Minister is satisfied that the transfer will not contravene subsection 34(2) (annual limit);
the Finance Minister must, in writing, direct that a specified amount (which must equal the requested amount) is to be:
(c) debited from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account; and
(d) credited to the Home Affairs Emergency Response Fund Special Account;
on a specified day during the financial year.
(8) A direction under subsection (7) is not a legislative instrument.
(9) The Finance Minister must give a copy of a direction under subsection (7) to the Treasurer and the Emergency Management Minister.
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(15) Heading to clause 32, page 28 (line 4), at the end of the heading, add "—general".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(16) Clause 32, page 28 (line 7), omit "section 20", substitute "subsection 20(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(17) Clause 32, page 28 (line 17), omit "section 34", substitute "subsection 34(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(18) Page 28 (after line 24), after clause 32, insert:
32A Channelling State/Territory grants through the COAG Reform Fund—resilience etc.
(1) If the Emergency Management Minister decides that a grant of financial assistance should be made to a State or Territory under subsection 20(1A), the Emergency Management Minister must, by writing, direct that, on a specified day, a specified amount (which must equal the amount of the grant) is to be:
(a) debited from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account; and
(b) credited to the COAG Reform Fund.
(2) The direction must be expressed to be given in order to enable the amount to be debited from the COAG Reform Fund for the purpose of making the grant.
(3) The Emergency Management Minister must not give a direction under subsection (1) if doing so would contravene subsection 34(2) (annual limit).
(4) Two or more directions under subsection (1) may be set out in the same document.
(5) A direction under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
(6) The Emergency Management Minister must give a copy of a direction under subsection (1) to the Treasurer and the Finance Minister.
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(19) Clause 33, page 28 (line 26), after "paragraph 32(1) (b)", insert "or 32A(1) (b)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(20) Clause 34, page 30 (line 5), before "The total", insert "(1)".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(21) Clause 34, page 30 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) The total amount debited from the Emergency Response Fund Special Account under sections 28A and 32A during a financial year must not exceed $50 million.
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(22) Clause 36, page 31 (line 17), omit "28 and 32", substitute "28, 28A, 32 and 32A".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(23) Clause 59, page 44 (line 8), omit "or 28", substitute ", 28 or 28A".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(24) Clause 61, page 45 (line 27), omit "28, 31 or 32", substitute "28, 28A, 31, 32 or 32A".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
(25) Clause 63, page 46 (line 22), omit "limit", substitute "limits".
[natural disaster resilience etc.]
Just very briefly, I did indicate in my speech in the second reading debate that we would be moving these amendments. I won't go over old ground, other than to say that these amendments arise from commitments we have secured from the government to increase the quantum of the Emergency Response Fund, moving it from distributing up to $150 million per annum to distributing $200 million per annum, with that extra $50 million being dedicated to disaster preparedness and mitigation infrastructure, something that we and many other stakeholders support. I thank the government for its cooperation.
I would like to thank the opposition for their constructive engagement on this legislation, which is very much in the national interest. The government will support opposition amendments to increase the amount of funding available to be released from the Emergency Response Fund in any given year to $200 million, up from $150 million in the current bill. The additional $50 million allocation will be available to governments for predisaster and emergency preparedness to minimise the risk of natural disasters impacting upon communities into the future. This funding will ensure that investments can be made in resilience in areas prone to natural disasters, and the additional $50 million per annum will be available for preparedness measures on the same terms as the $150 million provided for in the original legislation, which was available for emergency response measures.
For completeness, I should also indicate to the chamber that the government has agreed to establish a $100 million TAFE revitalisation grants program, in partnership with the states, based on a fifty-fifty split, to upgrade TAFE campuses across Australia. Commonwealth grant funding will be contingent upon matched contributions from states and territories, bringing the total funding available for TAFE upgrades to $100 million. I again thank the opposition for their positive and constructive engagement with the government on this bill.
The Greens will not be opposing these amendments, but I just have to say that circulating amendments literally five seconds before they're about to be discussed is pretty atrocious and pretty disrespectful. The Greens won't be opposing these amendments, because they do provide some funding for resilience and they do provide some funding for TAFE. I agree that it is better than nothing, but, in this instance, that is not good enough. The bottom line is that this bill still raids the Education Investment Fund, which has a few billion dollars in it for both TAFEs and universities. Doing a deal with the government to give $50 million to TAFE—that is a drop in the ocean. Yes, it is much-needed funding, but we could actually not raid the Education Investment Fund today and still provide funding for resilience, still provide much-needed funding for those communities who are facing these disasters.
And why are they going to be facing these disasters more and more? You've got to think about that. There is zero funding anywhere here for actually addressing the climate crisis. The irony of it all is that the very institutions that will be doing research in not only helping disaster relief, in not only helping people who have gone through these disasters, but actually addressing the climate emergency and climate crisis or training people into new jobs, into a new society, into a new economy, into a new world—those exact institutions, those exact places, are now bereft of that funding that is so desperately needed. I think that is the shame in this law.
I have a question for the minister. Noting the late arrival of the amendments, I am trying to get an understanding of exactly what they involve. So if I make any errors here, I apologise. My understanding is that the effect of these amendments will be that an extra $50 million will go to pre-disaster disaster preparation. Minister, how will that spending be determined? What process will the relevant minister go through? Is the relevant minister still the Home Affairs minister or is it some other minister? How will the expenditure be announced to both the parliament and the public?
Thank you very much, Senator Patrick. As I've indicated, the additional $50 million per annum will be available for preparedness measures on the same basis as the $150 million provided for in the original legislation which is available for response measures. This fund which is going to be set up—and it will get an investment mandate which will generate a higher income flow—will provide an overall budget allocation which will then be available for government to allocate, for the purposes indicated, through the normal government decision-making processes. These things will be announced in the normal way at budget time or budget update time, or in the intervening period and then reconciled in the budget. The minister with responsibility for emergency framework management is Minister Littleproud.
I understand that the $150 million will be spent in some sense as a result of a disaster. That is almost outside of the control of even Mr Dutton. I want to go back to the $50 million. Clearly that is pre-emptive, so it is not as the current bill suggests. I understand that the minister has the ability to allocate the funds, but in some sense it is determined by the disasters. This is pre-emptive. You talked about government processes. Will there be consultation? Will there be a call for submissions? Will there be experts involved in deciding how this $50 million will be spent each year? Is the government setting up a panel? How exactly does that money get allocated?
If this legislation passes, then the precise processes to ensure that the money is appropriately prioritised to the highest area of need, when it comes to predisaster and preparedness funding opportunities, will be set up by the government and announced in due course.
I understand that there have been late negotiations on this, so could I perhaps ask you to take on notice, when you've established the exact process this will go through, to table something that describes that process.
I'm happy to take that on notice and I'm happy to make the commitment that we will table that. I'm happy to indicate to the opposition that, in the spirit of good faith with which we have engaged in discussions on this legislation, we will particularly consult with the opposition and the shadow minister in relation to this, but we're prepared to consult with anyone in this chamber that has an interest in how this operates into the future.
I don't want to hold you to an exact date, but when do you expect the first announcements to be made? I am trying to get an understanding. Will it be next year that the first funds are likely to be committed, particularly to the predisaster preparation funding?
These are all matters that are yet to be determined, and I'm not going to make statements that are not informed by proper consideration.
I'll move now to the money that will be spent on TAFEs. Could I just get a confirmation. I thought I heard Senator Watt say during his second reader that he thought $50 million, but I heard you mentioning $100 million. I apologise for not perhaps understanding it properly, but could you clarify the situation for me?
Senator Watt is right and I'm right, but you didn't hear one component. The way we are proposing to structure this program is that the Commonwealth will provide $50 million on the basis of matched funding from the states, because TAFEs ultimately are a core area of responsibility of the states. It's a great opportunity to provide upgrades and refurbishments across Australia. When you've got $50 million worth of federal funding to be matched by the states, dollar for dollar, that takes you to a $100 million program.
Thank you for that clarification. Noting that that will involve a commitment from the states, has the government engaged with the states at this point in time or are you just confident that they will take the offer that's on the table?
The government is engaging with the state and territory governments in relation to vocational education and training in a general sense, and, of course, Senator Cash has been doing a lot of work with state and territory governments on an overall broader reform package. But this is a specific grants program which was agreed between the government and the opposition. I would be very surprised if the states were not receptive to the offer that's on the table.
In a similar vein to my previous questions, I'm interested in the process the government will go through in respect of the allocation of this funding. I'm sure that every state will probably stick up their hand and say they need more money than is available. I just want to make sure that there's been no predetermination in respect of which states will get what. Is it fair to assume that the funding will be allocated on a per capita basis or will it be done on some needs basis, based on submissions for grants by individual TAFEs or individual state governments?
There has not been any predetermined decision in relation to who would receive specific funding for specific projects. This will be a competitive grants program, with funding allocations made based on merit. Essentially, there will be opportunities to submit applications for funding in the usual way, and those applications will be assessed in the usual way. Ultimately, if the demand is stronger than the available pool of funds, then obviously there'll be a process of prioritisation, which follows the normal grants allocation processes of government.
Noting that the TAFEs are, in some sense, controlled by or agencies of the state, will it be the state governments, as governments, making representations in terms of grants or will it be the TAFE organisations themselves that will make applications?
My expectation would be that state and territory governments would take the lead in relation to these matters in respect of TAFE colleges in their respective jurisdictions. But, in relation to this specific grants program, those guidelines and those processes will be settled if this legislation is successfully passed.
Once again, excuse my ignorance on all of the grant processes that the Commonwealth has. I'd like an understanding as to when these grants are being decided upon, and one might presume there might be huge demand for these funds. I presume there will be a panel of independent experts, including officials from government, that makes a recommendation to a minister, or is it simply going to be a minister who makes the determination?
The decisions in relation to grant allocations and programs of this nature are always made based on advice. That's what will happen here. It's going to be a normal run-of-the-mill grants application process but involving a partnership with the states.
I'd just like to indicate to the committee that I should have moved these amendments as requests, due to the nature of appropriations involved. It's not desired to get into an argument with the House of Representatives and I'd like to table a full statement to that effect. I seek leave to table the statement.
Leave granted.
I'm interested in whether or not this will involve a panel or whether this will involve simply a minister making a decision? I'm not asking for the construction of the panel, just what the government's position or view is at this particular time in relation to the decision-making process associated with the grants program?
All of these specific details will be settled in due course, assuming that this legislation is passed by the parliament. It will not just be a unilateral arbitrary decision by a minister. It will be based on advice around appropriate prioritisation of potential grant allocations.
I'd ask—perhaps again on notice when the details become available—if you would undertake to table what those arrangements might be.
Yes.
As you know, I've been following the Indue card and I've been out there complaining that part of the Indue card and part of the promise of rolling it out was vocational training in our TAFEs, which I have not yet seen in one of these trial areas. It is not up and running; they're not working. My support for the Indue card will be a very big part of that. If you do not have the vocational training centres and TAFEs up and running, you've just lost my support as of today. Hundreds of millions of dollars needs to be spent on these TAFEs. Where is the money coming from to do the other end of the Indue card? And when are you going to start upgrading these TAFEs?
TAFE colleges and the vocational education sector generally do fall primarily under the purview of state and territory governments, but federal governments in recent years have taken increasing additional responsibility. This is another example of the federal government taking on additional responsibility. Senator Cash is working very hard with state and territory governments on a broader reform package which will be announced in due course.
Let me get this right: the Indue card now has had a trial and it's been out for four years in Ceduna. Once again, where's all the vocational training that is supposed to go along with the card? It is a carrot at the end of a stick. I'm just trying to work it out. It's getting too late for you to get this training in with the Indue card. I'm warning you today, I will not support that Indue card. I'll pull up stumps today. I'll stop following it around and I'll stop trying to sell it. I just want to know because, I tell you what, it's going to need a billion bucks invested in these TAFEs right across the country. I simply would like to know: what is your plan of attack? This is what I mean; it's like your rehab centres. Before you dish this stuff onto the most vulnerable, you've got to have things set up beforehand. This is not the way we do business in this country. Could someone tell me where that money's coming from?
This is a bill to set up the Emergency Response Fund in order to improve resilience across Australia in anticipation of potential disasters and to deal with national emergencies, even as they occur. The matters that Senator Lambie raises are all legitimate matters of inquiry, but these are matters that are best directed to Senator Cash, either in question time or in the context of appropriate legislation dealing with these matters.
Why should the states have to chip in $50 million when we had $4 billion to spend on TAFE before this bill?
Vocational education and training is primarily a state responsibility. It's an established process in these areas that funding allocations are made on a partnership basis. When the federal government does get themselves involved, it is established practice for that to be on a matched funding basis.
Where did the $50 million figure come from? Did you just pluck it from somewhere? It's pretty pathetic compared to the $4 billion that was actually in the fund for the future of education for our children. They deserve a right to know.
Labor announced a policy in the lead-up to the last election in relation to a $100 million TAFE restoration fund, and we've reached agreement between the government and the opposition to put this forward on the basis I've indicated to the chamber.
Is there any guarantee that this money is going to come through at all and be delivered? What's the time frame on that?
Yes. The government has given very public commitments. I think that's very clear. We follow through on our commitments, and it will be done as soon as possible and as soon as it sensibly can be done in the right way.
Apart from the government's word, do you think it's appropriate to give two minutes notice on this dirty deal that you've done with Labor? By the way, they've undersold their souls. For the people that ran in the last election saying they were going to build up our TAFEs—$50 million. God almighty! I can get more out of the government with just one of me than they can all together. Goodness. Will the crossbench help next time? For goodness's sake. Do you think it's appropriate that we've been given two minutes notice on the deal that Labor and the government have done? What you've done is absolutely rip off our kids and their trade skills for the future.
Question agreed to.
I oppose schedule 2 on sheet 8763 in the following terms:
(1) Schedule 2, page 10 (line 1) to page 15 (line 31), TO BE OPPOSED.
This is an amendment basically to preserve the Education Investment Fund, which is really what we are arguing about here—taking $4 billion from TAFE and universities. This is this government's third attempt to abolish the Education Investment Fund. That is how much they attack our students, our teachers and our educational institutions, and the Greens of course will not stand for this. That's why I'm moving this amendment—so we can prevent the Education Investment Fund from being abolished.
The Education Investment Fund should not be abolished and should be used only for education and research infrastructure, for our TAFEs and universities. It is the last remaining fund for education infrastructure, and the government is still intent on raiding it—and the Labor Party is supporting them in raiding that education fund. What happened to the Labor Party who used to be the party for public education? A measly $50 million in exchange for $4 billion—which state or territory will it go to? It won't even build one building for any TAFE or any university. I've said this before, but I want to say it again: this is the future of the next generation, of the current generation, not only because they need places and world's-best education but also because these are the very places that will help us combat the climate crisis, that will help us combat the disasters that are happening and that will help us build resilience in our communities.
It just makes no sense—but then, when have the government made any sense? And the Labor Party makes no sense at all. I commend the amendment to the House.
Firstly, I indicate that the government will be opposing this amendment. I now move:
That the committee report progress.
The committee will be able to sit again.
I seek an explanation from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. This is most unexpected. We're halfway through amendments in committee stage on a bill, and the Greens haven't been informed as to what arrangements have been made.
There was no debate on this question, Senator Waters. I'm happy to continue to put the question.
A point of order: I think a clarification was sought. It wasn't seeking debate—just a clarification.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: This is a question that must be put without a debate, unless the minister wishes to clarify.
I have moved that the committee report progress and it will sit again in order to facilitate the passage of this bill.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Progress reported.
I move:
That—
( a) if consideration of the Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 and a related bill has not concluded by 11.45 am today, the questions on all remaining stages, including any amendments that have now been circulated, shall then be put without debate.
(b) paragraph ( a) of this motion shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
Question agreed to.
The committee will resume consideration of schedule 2.
May I seek some clarification of the procedural stage that we're presently at. My understanding is that the motion was just moved that we go to a rolling gag if we haven't dealt with this bill by 11.45 am, yet we're back on the bill now. Pardon my confusion, but what is going on?
That was from 11.45 am.
I believe we're partway through moving Greens amendments, so my colleague Senator Faruqi will now proceed to do that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The Greens amendment has actually been moved, which is to oppose schedule 2. That is the question that is being put. The question is that schedule 2 of the Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 stand as printed.
() (): by leave—I move the amendments standing in my name on sheets 8780 and 8781 together:
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 20) to page 3 (line 2), omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Education Investment Fund Special Account", substitute:
(2) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 3 to 5), omit the definition of Education Investment Fund.
(3) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 8 and 9), omit "before that section was repealed".
(4) Clause 4, page 7 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of investment of the Education Investment Fund.
(5) Clause 8, page 9 (lines 7 to 11),omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Education Investment Fund Special Account", substitute:
(6) Clauses 10 and 11, page 10 (lines 9 to 28), omit the clauses, substitute: 10 Transfers from the Education Investment Fund Special Account
(1) The Finance Minister may, by legislative instrument, direct that, on a specified day, a specified amount is to be:
(a) debited from the Education Investment Fund Special Account; and
(b) credited to the Emergency Response Fund Special Account.
(2) The specified amount must not exceed the amount debited from the Education Investment Fund Special Account.
(3) The specified amount must not exceed an amount that is equal to three-quarters of the balance of the Education Investment Fund Special Account immediately before the commencement of this section.
(7) Clause 16, page 14 (after line 31), at the end of paragraph 16(a), add:
(vii) paragraph 136(1) (j) or 137(e) of the Nation-building Funds Act 2008;
(8) Clause 16, page 15 (after line 10), at the end of paragraph 16(b), add:
(vii) paragraph 136(1) (k) or 137(f) of the Nation-building Funds Act 2008;
(9) Clause 16, page 15 (after line 24), at the end of paragraph 16(c), add:
(vii) a paragraph of subsection 136(1) or section 137 of the Nation-building Funds Act 2008;
(10) Clause 16, page 15 (line 35) to page 16 (line 3), omit subparagraphs (f) (ii) and (iii), substitute:
(ii) in connection with the operation of the Agency.
(1) Schedule 2, page 10 (line 1) to page 15 (line 31), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 2—Other amendments Nation-building Funds Act 2008
1 At the end of Division 4 of Part 3
Add:
145A Education Investment Fund Special Account limited to purpose of vocational education and training infrastructure
(1) On and after this section's commencement, the purpose of the Education Investment Fund Special Account is limited to only making payments in relation to the creation or development of vocational education and training infrastructure.
(2) Subsection (1) does not affect payments that were authorised under section 176 before this section's commencement.
2 At the end of section 176
Add:
(9) The Finance Minister must not make an authorisation under subsections (1), (2), (4) or (5) on or after this section's commencement.
3 At the end of Division 4 of Part 3
Add:
187A EIF Education Portfolio Special Account limited to purpose of vocational education and training infrastructure
(1) On and after this section's commencement, the purpose of the ElF Education Portfolio Special Account is limited to only making payments in relation to the creation or development of vocational education and training infrastructure.
(2) Subsection (1) does not affect payments that were specified in a direction made under section 183 before this section's commencement.
I also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:
(11) Clause 62, page 10 (lines 4 to 8), TO BE OPPOSED.
These amendments retain $1 billion in the Education Investment Fund and transfer the remaining amount to the Emergency Response Fund. I don't expect these to pass, and let's consider why. This bill whips up a $4 billion opportunity to fund TAFE and turns it into a $4 billion fund to fund disaster responses. The government say: 'Don't worry about that. TAFEs have had enough money as it is. We're giving them plenty of money. They don't need $4 billion. You know what they say!'
I say you're living in a fantasy land. You think TAFEs have too much money? Where are you living! Come to my side of town. Come to the Devonport TAFE campus in Tasmania. Let me show you the rust, the holes, the water damage. Let me show you the equipment they are training the kids in my community with. Let me show you the date stamp that said it was manufactured during the Cold War. Tasmanian student nurses are being trained in rooms on top of the spray-painters, who are working on the full blow, and the air fills with paint fumes. That's where our nurses are! I hope your 50 mil is going to pay to fix that. Rain comes straight through the roof and lands on electrical equipment—that's right. Bring in the OHS. Bring in the damn union, if that's what it takes!
And this isn't about one TAFE campus in one state. Did you know that you can buy all of South Australia's TAFE buildings and land for $10 million? That is the value of land and asset these days. Tell me again how South Australia's TAFEs are getting their fair share. Point this out and you are told that you don't care about natural disaster funding. Give me a break! People are sick of the cheap student politics that is going on in this place. They've had enough. You can't close down the EIF on its merits, so you can change the bill to make it so that the money is going to something so inoffensive that nobody could possibly object. You may as well have shut down the EIF and transferred all the money over to the 'Curling up on a rainy day with a good book fund'. Nobody in this place, nobody in this country, is against you funding natural disaster responses.
And it seems like nobody in this place is against you ripping $4 billion out of infrastructure for tertiary education either. Well, guess what? I'm against it. I never went to university; I went to TAFE. I did not get the advantage that so many of you in this place did—and take for granted. To you, TAFEs are a cost. They are something to fund on your way to a university opening its latest $150 million centre of excellence in something or other. But for some of us TAFEs stand for something, TAFEs mean something. TAFEs are a cornerstone of rural and regional Australia. How are the Nats going? TAFEs are more than training centres; they are landmarks, they are symbols. When a symbol is left to fall by the wayside through a lack of investment, it says something about how that community sees itself. If you're not investing in training in my community, you're not investing in my community—and that's not all right by me.
Nobody thinks you shouldn't fund natural disaster emergency responses—you should. But you shouldn't be doing it for political purposes. You know what you should be doing—just funding it. If there is a bushfire or cyclone or flood, you don't stick your hands in the air and say, 'I wish I could help, but the money's all in the Education Investment Fund.' You just get on with the job and help—instead of worrying about a surplus. Yes, it's all about a surplus. How is that going for everybody? There are millions of Australians out there who are suffering—and this is just another move. It is more important to have a surplus so you look like economic geniuses over there. Well, you are not—and you are failing our children. Why are you doing this? Why are you selling out Tasmanians like this? I don't see the Tasmanians over there saying anything about their TAFEs. They know how depleted they are. No, they are all quiet. I don't know what to do if the Labor Party and the Liberal Party work together to do nothing for TAFE. I can't do anything if you both agree to do nothing. Do you think we don't need it?
Labor went to the last election—this is great—telling everyone they could find that they could fund the impact of six years of Liberal Party cuts to TAFE and training. Labor used to say that Australia is in a skills crisis—with 150 fewer apprentices and trainees and a shortage of workers in critical services, including plumbers, hairdressers, carpenters and motor mechanics. Doesn't the Prime Minister want to train Australians to do these jobs? Doesn't the opposition want to have training for our kids to do these jobs? You know who is making this happen? The Labor Party—who used to say that if you are serious about jobs you don't cut money from TAFEs. Here is the Labor member for Bendigo talking about this bill:
Because of the abolition of this program, universities, TAFEs and research institutions have said that they will either cancel or postpone future infrastructure investment or upgrades. When we're going through a skills crisis, why would you put that pressure on our universities and TAFEs?
Here is the Labor member for Macquarie talking about this bill:
Our TAFEs need improvement. We have wonderful opportunities for horticulture, for really clever stuff that would allow us to be exporting to niche markets in Asia, yet our TAFE has a glasshouse that is decades old and doesn't meet the standards that employers would expect for people to be trained in. So there is a huge need for this sort of investment.
She also said:
To take away money from education is a pretty heartless thing to do.
Here's the Labor member for Grayndler talking about the bill:
It undermines education infrastructure in this country.
Labor used to say:
TAFE must be backed by governments as it is critical to our future.
I'm sure TAFE are just thrilled to have your backing, Labor! I'm sure they're jumping from the stairs today! This is how they vote in the opposition. If they're so keen to compromise on everything they stood for as recently as May, you can only imagine what it would be like if they'd won the election and were forced to sit on the Treasury benches. Take a bow, the party of TAFE! The party of TAFE is voting with the conservatives to take away $4 billion in investment opportunities that could have gone to our TAFEs. You know what? Labor and the coalition are as bad as each other.
Next year I am sure the public will be pleased to see that we're in a surplus and we can afford all the great things that we can't afford right now. Maybe once we're in a surplus we can afford to replace the rusted floors of our TAFE campuses. Maybe we have to wait for the surplus before we can get the water damage repaired or the hole in the roof patched over. I'll tell Tasmanians: 'It's all right, guys. Just keep waiting.' I'll tell them to send their regards to you, Labor. Here's my question: if we've got so much money, why is the government and the opposition pretending that Australia can't afford to train our young people properly and have some cash to help out in a disaster? What is the point in penny pinching if it means we have to gut our TAFEs further? We could have done so much more with this money, so much greatness.
My heart goes out to those kids in regional Australia because, by Jesus, they're about to get slapped again. They're going to have to move away from their friends and family to get a decent education, and that is shameful. They could have been leaders in their community. They could have settled, started a family and brought more business and work to their community. Instead, they go to Hobart, Sydney, Melbourne, and most of them will never come back. Imagine what we could have done for those kids if we'd actually used the money from this fund. Our kids could have got the training they'll need for the future. We could have invested in the infrastructure that regional TAFEs so desperately need. We could have given students hope for a future in their own home towns. We even could have used this money to help train students to prevent disasters from happening in the first place. They could have learnt irrigation and water management strategies to help reduce the impact of drought. They could have learnt construction engineering to help build homes that can better withstand floods and fires. They could have learnt to work on wind farms and with hydroelectricity and solar to help Tasmania and other states reduce their carbon footprint. Instead, the fund has been sitting on the back books gathering dust since 2013.
Imagine what we could have done with this money if we'd started investing it many, many years ago, which is what it was originally meant for. Imagine if we'd used this bill as an opportunity to kickstart the fund, to figure out what students need and to do disaster relief, as you say you're doing.
I'm stunned that Labor and the coalition have done this dirty deal and sold out our TAFEs. I've got to be honest here: you're talking a lot about the ACT's marijuana laws, but I'm starting to think that's all for show and you're all on the stuff yourselves! It's beyond dumb.
To spend a minute arguing whether or not we need a fund for natural disaster relief—for the record, yes we do. And we don't have to do it like this. When a natural disaster hits and you're left to pick up the pieces of what's left of your life, you pick them up and start again. You're devastated, but you do what you can and keep going. The fireys who drag you out of a burning home may well hold a cert III in public safety from TAFE. Some of the people who help rebuild your home are trained at TAFE. The people who help repair your pipes are trained at TAFE. The ones who do your carpentry: that's TAFE. TAFE rebuilds those lives that are left devastated by fire and flood. TAFE trains heroes, and you're gutting it.
TAFEs don't just help my fireys, sparkies and tradies; TAFEs help remake lives too. When you suddenly find yourself a single mum and are forced to find a job to keep your kids in school and the sandwiches in the lunch boxes, you're pretty devastated, but you do what you can and keep going. Our TAFEs help these single mums too. It's the place up the road they go to get a qualification they never expected they'd need. It's affordable, flexible, practical, and it's damn useful. It will get them further in life. It doesn't take a natural disaster to leave a person needing a chance to start again. Sometimes you need TAFE for reasons you'd never have thought, and sometimes you take it for granted, but you miss it when it's gone. And it's falling down in front of us all. Floors, walls ceilings are all crumbling. I call that a disaster. That's a disaster. Good work, Labor! I can see why you don't want to call yourselves the opposition any more. At least you're honest about that.
The question is that amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 8780 and amendment (1) on sheet 8781 be agreed to.
The question now is that the Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
On 2 July I launched a petition calling for a religious freedom act to protect freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of people who, through emails, calls and lots of original petitions in the mail, have responded and supported my initiative. On this, the anniversary of the canonisation of Australia's first saint, Mary MacKillop, I lodge 10,000 signatures as the first tranche of my petition. I encourage all Australians to continue to disseminate and return the petitions to my electorate office in Wollongong. In coming weeks, I will present and table the many thousands more petitions that my office continues to receive and process on behalf of Australians.
Is anyone else presenting a petition? I was told there might be a second petition. We can come back to it by leave, if necessary.
There is one, but it's a non-conforming petition. We can come back to it later.
We'll come back it later, by leave of the Senate.
Pursuant to notice given on 16 October 2019 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of various legislative instruments, as set out in the list circulated in the chamber.
by leave—I withdraw notice of motion No. 159 as listed for today.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence by granted to Senator Di Natale for today due to personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I present the seventh report of 2019 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 7 OF 2019
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 7.20 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019, the VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2019 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and:
(a) in respect of the:
(i) Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019 and related bills, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 22 November 2019, and
(ii) Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 28 February 2020; and
(b) the following bills not be referred to committees:
Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019
Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019".
I don't actually have a copy of the amendment. We've only just been notified of this amendment. I understand the Labor Party knows, but I don't, and I'm the Whip. We have not been informed. I'm told that there's a change to one of the bills that I wanted deferred.
It's being forwarded to you now, I understand. Sorry, I was advised that it had been circulated.
While we don't object to (1) and (2) in clause (a), we had asked that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019 in clause (b) be deferred rather than not be referred. We would prefer to vote on that separately.
On clause (b), or just on the third bill in clause (b), separately?
On all of those, because I understand they were ones that we had sought to defer.
I will put part (a) of the amendment moved by Senator Ruston. This is only about part (a). The question is that that part of the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I will now put part (b) of the amendment. This is the section of the amendment of bills not to be referred to committees. The question is that part (b) of the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019 be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion No. 216, standing in the name of Senator Siewert, relating to Newstart and youth allowance; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) on Thursday, 17 October 2019, the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, standing in the name of Senator Patrick for that day, be called on for debate by no later than 3pm; and
(b) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (a) is not concluded at 4 pm, the questions on the unresolved motion shall then be put.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, on Monday, 11 November 2019, to enable senators to attend Remembrance Day services:
(a) the Senate meet at 12pm;
(b) the routine of business from 12pm till 2 pm shall be consideration of private senators' bills; and
(c) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.
(2) That the second reading of the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 be restored to the Notice Paper.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.
(2) That the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 [No. 2] be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the stage reached in the 45th Parliament.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Before moving business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4, I ask that the names of Senators Kitching and Siewert be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Askew, Kitching and Siewert, move:
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report:
Investigations into a possible cancer cluster on the Bellarine Peninsula, Victoria, with particular reference to:
(a) the health concerns of local residents;
(b) the incidence of cancer cases in the area, and any possible environmental or other contributing factors;
(c) the evidence, approach and outcomes concerning the Victorian Chief Health Officer's investigation of cancer rates on the Bellarine Peninsula; and
(d) any other related matter.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5 standing in my name for today proposing a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee concerning Australia's dairy industry.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the third sitting day in March 2020:
The performance of Australia's dairy industry and the profitability of Australian dairy farmers since deregulation in 2000, with particular reference to:
(a) the ability of Dairy Australia to act independently and support the best interests of both farmers and processors;
(b) the accuracy of statistical data collected by Dairy Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics;
(c) the funding of Dairy Australia and the extent of its consultation and engagement on the expenditure of levies revenue;
(d) the merits of tasking the ACCC to investigate how it can regulate the price of milk per litre paid by processors to dairy farmers to ensure a viable dairy industry;
(e) alternative approaches to supporting a viable dairy sector;
(f) the introduction of a mandatory industry code of practice; and
(g) any related matters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government does not support reregulation via an ACCC investigation, as reregulation is not supported by the industry. As recommended by the ACCC, we're implementing a mandatory code of conduct to increase fairness and transparency between dairy farmers and processors. The code has been developed in consultation with industry and will help to address the imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and processors. Progress has been made to expedite the code. An exposure draft will be released shortly for industry feedback, and it's expected to be in place by 1 January 2020. The government is also reviewing the rural research and development corporations system, with consultation currently open until 4 November 2019.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Centre Alliance will be supporting Senator Hanson's reference. I point out that the reference doesn't suggest that an outcome ought to be regulation, just that it be explored. I point out to the chamber that there was an inquiry in relation to the dairy industry back in 2011, looking at $1 milk. There was an ACCC inquiry. There was a 2011 Senate inquiry looking at farmgate prices. I point out to the chamber that the government has not responded to that 2011 committee report. I have grave concerns that we will end up doing this inquiry, assuming that the Senate supports it, but that the report will come back to the Senate and be ignored again by government. You are not doing anything about farmers and dairy farmers. We will support this— (Time expired)
The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 5, as amended, be agreed to.
I move:
(1) That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2019:
The proposed Indonesia, Hong Kong and Peru trade deals, with particular reference to the impact of the agreements on Australia's:
(a) economy and trade;
(b) domestic labour market testing obligations and laws regarding wages, conditions and entitlements of Australian workers and temporary work visa holders;
(c) investment;
(d) social, cultural and environmental policies, including as a result of interactions with investor-state dispute settlement provisions; and
(e) any related matters.
(2) That, in conducting the inquiry, the committee shall review the agreement to ensure it is in Australia's national interest, and have regard to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the proposed agreements.
Notice of motion altered on 16 October 2019 pursuant to standing order 77.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government opposes this motion. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has twice supported ratifying the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement and last week supported ratifying the trade agreements with Indonesia and Hong Kong, noting the benefits these agreements will bring to Australia's economy and Australian jobs. There are no new labour market testing waivers under these agreements or any dilution of Australian workplace standards. The agreements have stronger investment safeguards and strengthen the government's ability to regulate, including on legitimate public welfare measures like health and the environment. These agreements will create more opportunities for Australian farmers, investors, businesses and workers.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This reference should get up. We should be looking at these trade deals closely. The reason it's not is the same reason we just had a decision by the Senate, supported by Labor, not to refer the bills to committee—the enabling legislation for these trade agreements—and it's because Labor doesn't want to highlight the fact that they are heading down the path of voting for another trade treaty that includes ISDS, against its own platform, and that does have labour market testing aspects to it. What Senator Duniam said is not quite correct. What you are doing is seeking to avoid scrutiny. Senator Hanson has indicated that she won't be supporting enabling legislation. You have the numbers to stop this. You just need the courage of conviction. (Time expired)
The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 6 in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to enhance the integrity of the Parliament of Australia, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill is intended to operate alongside the National Integrity Commission Bill (No. 2) 2018, which was passed by the Senate on 9 September 2019.
Together, this integrated package of reforms will promote public trust and confidence in the integrity of parliament, the public sector and our democratic systems. The package is about creating a culture of integrity and respect and a practical, proactive approach to preventing corruption.
The erosion of the public's trust in democracy is not only a result of high level criminal corruption, but of the more insidious misuse of power and decline in political conduct. People see the loss of civility, the favours done for mates and donors, the turning a blind eye to breaches, the political reward of cushy post-parliamentary careers. The Democracy 2025 report confirms that the Australian public is sick of the poor behaviour of politicians and demanding that we lift the standards.
The Bill builds on previous code of conduct proposals by Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale. Those proposals were a response to declining standards of behaviour that led to a senator wearing a burqa into the Senate as a publicity stunt, a senator talking about 'the final solution', and disgraceful examples of sexist, racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic comments in parliament. The Senate Procedure Committee recommended voluntary codes of conduct in response, but it is clear that a compulsory code is needed to bring some credibility back to parliament.
Being elected to this place is a privilege. The very least the public should be able to expect of its elected representatives is civil debate, transparency, and a commitment to using the privilege to act in the best interests of the public, not themselves.
The Bill establishes a statutory code of conduct that requires all politicians and senior staff to behave respectfully, to perform their roles seriously and with care, to avoid conflicts of interest and profiting from their positions. It requires parliamentarians to ensure that power and public resources are used in the public interest.
This new code of conduct will supplement the existing Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Lobbying Code of Conduct, and give those codes the independent oversight and teeth they have been lacking. The Bill also requires a review of those codes to strengthen the standards regarding lobbying and post-parliamentary employment.
The Bill also provides a statutory basis for the existing registers of interests.
The Bill will establish an independent Parliamentary Integrity Adviser to provide confidential advice on integrity issues. Helping parliamentarians and staff to understand their obligations and talk through ethical issues will help to prevent corruption. To encourage people to seek advice on ethical issues, the Bill protects the confidentiality of any matters discussed with the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser.
The Bill will also establish a Parliamentary Standards Commissioner with broad powers to investigate breaches and report on ethical and integrity standards. For serious allegations, the Commissioner may refer the matter to the National Integrity Commission for a more comprehensive investigation.
Importantly, the Bill seeks to protect those who come forward with code of conduct concerns. It will be an offence to threaten or intimidate any person who refers a matter to the Commissioner, seeks advice from the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser or provides information, documents or other evidence to those bodies.
The Bill recognises the potentially corrupting influence of political donations and campaign financing. It requires a review to improve the consistency and enforceability of Commonwealth, State and Territory donations disclosure and campaign expenditure rules and to bring those rules in line with national and international best practice.
This Bill builds on a decade of tireless advocacy from various Greens members. I acknowledge former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan MP, for previously introducing this Bill in the other place, and for joining the Greens in championing the creation of a strong integrity framework.
The Bill is consistent with recommendations made by Transparency International, Griffith University and by the Australia Institute's National Integrity Committee. It has been informed by the Draft Code of Conduct prepared by the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in 2011 andthe 2015 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's Recommended benchmarks for code of conduct applying to members of parliament.
This Bill has been a long time coming and the need for it could not be clearer.
The Greens are committed to cleaning up politics and restoring public faith in democracy. This Bill and its companion, the National Integrity Commission Bill (No. 2) will lift the standards and make parliament a place that works for everyone.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) International Brain Tumour Awareness Week will be held from 26 October to 2 November 2019,
(ii) the five-year survival rate for malignant brain tumours, known as brain cancer, is still only 22%,
(iii) while not as deadly as brain cancer, benign tumours in certain areas of the brain can still be life-threatening and may require urgent treatment, and
(iv) even surviving a brain tumour, patients can suffer ongoing symptoms, including brain damage and paralysis;
(b) congratulates the Brain Tumour Alliance Australian and the International Brain Tumour Alliance for their ongoing advocacy for brain tumour patients; and
(c) urges the Australian Government to take whatever action is necessary to improve brain cancer and tumour survival.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Anti-Poverty Week is from 13 to 19 October 2019, and 17 October 2019 is the United Nations Day for the Eradication of Poverty,
(ii) it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to obtain and retain the basic means to live and support themselves because of:
(A) an insufficient youth allowance which hinders their ability to enter meaningful employment, complete further practical or academic study and/or explore entrepreneurship, while meeting the rising costs of living,
(B) a shrinking job market and decreasing employment opportunities, and
(C) the multinational corporations which currently monopolise markets and prevent aspiring young entrepreneurs from breaking into the market,
(iii) the 2019 Grattan Institute report, Generation gap: ensuring a fair go for younger Australians, found that:
(A) there is a growing wealth gap which is failing young people,
(B) youth unemployment is at 13% and rising, and is far higher than that of the mean national unemployment rate of around 5%, and
(C) youth underemployment is on the rise, growing from 12% to 20% between 2006 and 2016, and
(iv) ensuring that young people can access the supports and services they need to be able to access a quality education, put food on the table, have a safe place to sleep every night and still enjoy a good life is ultimately an investment in the future; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) reinstate federal funding for the national peak advocacy body for young people,
(ii) reinstate a separate Federal Minister for Youth Affairs so that young people have a dedicated representative in the Federal Parliament, and
(iii) work with young people and their peak representative bodies to develop a national strategy to address increasing generational inequality, and ensure that young people can access the supports and services they need to live a good life.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator McCarthy, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Anangu traditional owners have been working with the tourism industry and national parks to develop visitor attraction strategies after the Uluru climb closes on 26 October 2019, and
(ii) the 2017 decision to close the climb this year was in line with the agreed process in the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Management Plan 2010-2020; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to:
(i) support Anangu in their determination to protect their sites and tjukurpa,
(ii) support Anangu in their aspirations to share Uluru, their culture and their country with visitors who want to learn more about this significant place, and
(iii) continue to support strategies and investment that place culture and environment at the centre of the Uluru Kata Tjuta visitor experience.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Scarr and Brockman, move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the significance of the discovery of gold in the state of Western Australia;
(b) notes the following achievements for Western Australia's gold mining and exploration sector:
(i) Western Australia continued to lead gold exploration activity in 2018-19, accounting for 70% ($673 million) of Australia's total gold exploration expenditure,
(ii) Western Australia accounted for 212 tonnes (67%) of Australia's total gold production in 2018-19,
(iii) gold sales by value increased 5% to almost $12 billion in 2018-19,
(iv) the gold price broke through the AU$2000 barrier in June, averaged almost AU$2,220 in September 2019, setting a new record high, and
(v) the gold mining and exploration sector directly employed over 31,000 people, and contributed over $291 million in royalties to Western Australia in 2018-19; and
(c) acknowledges that:
(i) Phillip (Phil) Saunders and Adam Johns discovered gold in the tributaries of the Ord River in 1882,
(ii) Edward T. Hardman played a key role in discovery of East Kimberley goldfields (Elvire River near Halls Creek) in 1884, and
(iii) Charles Hall and John Slattery made the first discovery of payable gold in Halls Creek, Western Australia on 14 July 1885, triggering the Kimberley gold rush.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) it can currently take up to two years for police or security agencies to access data held in the United States on platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook, in relation to serious crime investigations, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime,
(ii) the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act), enacted in March 2018 by the United States Congress, empowers the United States Government to enter into agreements with foreign governments to radically speed up the time it takes foreign police and security agencies to access electronic data held in the US for the purpose of investigating serious crimes,
(iii) the CLOUD Act includes a number of requirements that must be satisfied before the United States Government can enter into an agreement with a foreign government, including that the foreign government's domestic laws must afford 'robust substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties in light of the data collection and activities of the foreign government that will be subject to the agreement',
(iv) on 3 October 2019, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States announced they had successfully concluded their negotiations and entered into an agreement under the CLOUD Act, meaning UK police and security agencies will be able to access data held in the United States for serious crime investigations substantially faster Australian police and security agencies,
(v) unlike the UK Government, which has already concluded its CLOUD Act negotiations, the Australian Government has only just started its negotiations with the United States,
(vi) there are widespread concerns that Australia's encryption laws, passed last year by the Morrison Government, do not provide 'robust substantive and procedural protections' as required by the CLOUD Act,
(vii) amendments presented to the Senate last year, but rejected by the Government, could have provided appropriate 'robust substantive and procedural protections',
(viii) less than 24 hours after the announcement that Australia-United States CLOUD Act negotiations had begun on 7 October 2019, the Chairman of the United States House Judiciary Committee,
Congressman Jerrold Nadler, sent a letter to the Minister for Home Affairs expressing grave concerns about the absence of 'robust substantive and procedural protections' in the Australian Government's encryption laws,
(ix) the speed with which Congressman Nadler, whose committee plays a key role in approving any potential agreement between the United States and Australia, wrote his letter suggests that Australia may be a long way off from being able to access electronic data held in the United States to investigate serious crimes, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime, and
(x) without an agreement between the United States and Australia under the CLOUD Act, victims of vile crimes, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime, will continue to have to wait for up to two years for police to even be able to get a good start on their case;
(b) condemns:
(i) the Australian Government for not being as proactive as the UK Government has been in securing a CLOUD Act agreement with the United States, and
(ii) the Australian Government for isolating Australian police and security agencies from potential resources that could reduce wait times to get access to critical data, held in the United States, to aid in the investigation of serious crimes, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime from two years to just a few days; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to work productively with all parties in the Senate to ensure Australia's encryption legislation can be amended to address any and all obstacles in the way of securing the best outcome for Australian police and security agencies, and the Australian people.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian government welcomes the commencement of negotiations for a bilateral agreement with the United States in relation to its Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act—the CLOUD Act. The CLOUD Act bilateral agreement would allow Australian law enforcement and national security agencies to seek lawful access to data directly from the United States providers and vice versa. The US Attorney-General recognised Australia as a close partner with robust protections for privacy and civil liberties, and the government can advise that no issues have been identified with the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act that would prevent Australia from successfully negotiating a CLOUD Act bilateral agreement with the United States.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia's encryption laws are world's worst practice. The assistance and access act was rightfully condemned in this country and around the world as a wrecker of Australian rights and jobs. Although we have concerns regarding a potential bilateral CLOUD Act agreement with the US, a legislated agreement would at least shine a light and could potentially regulate how data is shared between partner nations, which we know is already happening behind closed doors. However, we should be working towards rights based agreements, particularly as in Australia we have fewer digital rights compared to prospective CLOUD Act partners the US and the UK.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Centre Alliance will be supporting this motion. Whilst it's essential to ensure that law enforcement can investigate serious crimes through timely access to electronic data, it is vital that any bilateral data access regimes should properly protect the rights and privacies of Australian citizens. That includes strong protection for journalists and media organisations that may be targeted in the US government's politically driven crackdown on information leaks, whistleblowers, journalists and media organisations. Consequently, it will be essential that the Australian parliament, especially the Senate and its committees, keep a close watch on the progress of these negotiations. No agreement relating to the CLOUD Act should be signed until after the full text has been made public and subjected to review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and other relevant parliamentary committees, and the parliament has examined and passed the necessary enabling legislation.
The question is that motion No. 199 standing in the name of Senator Keneally be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:34]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The division was unavailable at the time of publishing.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 200 standing in my name for today relating to a rural hardship education fund.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to consider putting in place a Rural Hardship Education Fund or other options to assist geographically isolated students and their families with educational expenses during times of rural hardship to ensure their education can continue unchanged.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Morrison government is supporting Australian students affected by drought and flood through the isolated children scheme, to help eligible parents and carers with the extra costs of educating their children when they cannot go to an appropriate government school; $4 million in special circumstances funding to assist 25 non-government schools that were impacted by floods, benefiting more than 600 students; a $1.2 billion Choice and Affordability Fund to support choice in schools, including support in drought affected areas; the Community Child Care Fund, which will support access to child care in regional and remote Australia, with $327 million over five years; and the flood education supplement one-off payment of $1,000 per student for isolated families severely affected by the floods in North Queensland.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens support the universal right of every child to access education, and we recognise the particular hardship faced by families in isolated areas, particularly those areas in drought. Funding could include extra support for small rural schools, like Trundle Central School in the Central West or Hermidale Public School between Nyngan and Cobar, to provide extra services and care to students and their families. It could mean building new public boarding schools. It could be used to provide for additional teachers to be employed in the most affected areas to support distance education students with home visits. Let's do everything we can to support every kid to get a world-class public education, no matter where they live.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997, the Export Control Act 1982 and the proposed Export Control Act 2018 to restrict the long haul export of live sheep and lambs during the northern hemisphere summer months of July, August or September in a five year transitional period, or at any time after that period, where the voyage is by ship and of duration exceeding 10 days, and where a place in that voyage is either the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea (regardless of whether it is the final destination).
The question is that motion No. 201 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Federal Government is currently in the process of developing the National Alcohol Strategy 2018-2026 (NAS) which aims to reduce harmful alcohol consumption, including from binge drinking and disease or injury caused by a lifetime of drinking,
(ii) alcohol contributes to disease such as cancer and preventable harm, including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and is estimated to be responsible for nearly 6000 deaths in Australia each year, and
(iii) the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum (MDAF) had committed to finalising the NAS by the end of 2018, but it has not met since June 2018, and the strategy is still unfinished;
(b) further notes:
(i) the concern from health groups and specialists who developed and consulted on the initial draft of the NAS, that the revised draft has been watered down following involvement of the alcohol industry,
(ii) reports that the reason the revised draft of the NAS has not been finalised is because of state and territory concerns about the alcohol industry's interference in a public health strategy, and
(iii) that an analysis by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education shows the revised draft deletes a safeguard that the alcohol industry will not be eligible for membership of the NAS Reference Group, which will guide implementation, monitor progress and evaluate the strategy, and it also deletes the statement that 'Australia does not support any ongoing role for industry in setting or developing national alcohol policy'; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to remove the pro-industry changes that were made to the NAS, and reintroduce the safeguards against alcohol industry involvement that were deleted.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government rejects the premise of the motion; it is false. At Minister Hunt's request, Commonwealth health department officials have undertaken productive discussions with their state and territory counterparts to finalise the National Alcohol Strategy, through the National Drug Strategy committee. Finalisation and endorsement of the National Alcohol Strategy is a responsibility of the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum, and this is a priority item for all ministers. The Australian government is committed to preventing and reducing alcohol related harms. We have committed more than $780 million over four years to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on individuals, families and communities.
Question agreed to.
Before moving general business notice of motion No. 203, I ask that the name of Senator Marielle Smith be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Marielle Smith, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) this week is Anti-Poverty Week 2019,
(ii) nearly one third of women over 65 live in poverty, with many experiencing or at risk of homelessness,
(iii) according to the HILDA Statistical Report 2019, single elderly women are the lowest income family group and women aged over 65, were more likely than not to have experienced poverty in the previous 10 years,
(iv) the effects of lower wages and time out of the workforce compound across women's working lives – on average, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men, and almost 35% of women aged between 60 and 65, have no superannuation at all, and
(v) approximately 23% of Newstart recipients are aged between 55 and 64; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to help reduce the poverty rate of older women in Australia by:
(i) immediately increasing Newstart and related payments, and
(ii) investing in social housing, including transitional and crisis housing, and
(iii) taking action to close the gender retirement income gap.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate agrees that, given we are in a climate emergency, no new thermal coal mines should be opened.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation opposes this motion. According to the 5 November 1982 edition of the journal Science, termites alone emit 10 times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. When will we see the socialist Greens motion condemning termites? Considering that China produces over 27 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide output and is currently planning to build hundreds of new coal-fired power stations, when can we expect to see Senator Whish-Wilson and the socialist Greens putting forward daily motions condemning the Chinese Communist Party? Not only does China produce over a quarter of the world's human carbon outside output; their commitment to the so-called Paris agreement allows them to continue to increase their carbon dioxide output until 2030 and only then slow the increase—not stop the increase in output or decrease output but slow the increase—coinciding with the end of their building phase. That is business as usual as 1.4 billion people seek to continue to make progress from hydrocarbon fuels.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will not be supporting this motion. I am again going to call out the Greens for continuing to bring motions into this place that seek to divide those in this chamber who want to see genuine action on climate change and work together to deliver it. This is another variation of the many motions you bring into this chamber every week for the sole purpose of dividing the progressive vote, showing that you are 'holier than thou' and making sure we are in a position where we are forced to vote against it. We put our hand out to you and say: why don't we, for a change, work together on issues of climate change and try to get things through this parliament that will make a difference?
The question is that motion No. 204 be agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019, and I begin by stating that Labor supports this bill. This bill will improve the paid parental leave work test by extending eligibility for women who work in dangerous occupations or who have irregular employment. The bill will enable more working parents to be eligible for paid parental leave by expanding the work test to include two parent groups: women who are unable to continue in their job because of the hazardous nature of their employment with no safe job alternatives and mothers with a work gap greater than eight weeks between the two working days during the work test period. Australia's national paid parental leave scheme is a proud Labor legacy, introduced by the Labor government, now in its eighth year, having commenced on 1 January 2011. When the paid parental leave scheme was introduced, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a national scheme, the United States being the other.
The purpose of the paid parental leave scheme is to provide financial support to primary carers of newborn and newly adopted children to allow those carers to take time off work to care for the child after the child's birth or adoption, enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children, enable women to continue to participate in the workforce and promote equality between men and women and the balance between work and family life. Paid parental leave signals to employers and the Australian community that parents taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child is part of the usual course of life. It also enables participation of women in the workforce. A high workforce participation rate is important in the context of an ageing population and helps to address the gender pay gap, particularly for those women on low and middle incomes who have less access to employer funded parental leave. Paid parental leave plays an important role in closing the gender pay gap. We know that women are usually the primary carers of children, but we need to make sure that men are supported, empowered and encouraged to take on more caring if we're going to close the gender pay gap. Paid parental leave also allows mothers and fathers to look after their children in their most critical development years without sacrificing career progression or ability to work and to do so without eating into their savings. As I've started, Labor will be supporting this bill.
I thank Senator Brown for her contribution, and I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a Committee of the Whole stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019. This bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 governance arrangements between the Commonwealth and states and territories regarding rulemaking and decision-making under the NDIS Act. It creates provisions for a 28-day process for the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to consult with states and territories on appointments to the board of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, other than the chair, and NDIS Independent Advisory Council. It inserts a new requirement that the minister be satisfied that the Commonwealth and a majority of the group—consisting of the Commonwealth and host jurisdictions, rather than the Commonwealth and all states and territories—support the appointment of a board member other than the chair. The changes will require the minister to consult states and territories about the appointment of each member on the advisory council, other than the principal number.
The bill establishes a requirement that the minister be satisfied that the Commonwealth and a majority of the group consisting of the Commonwealth and the host jurisdictions support the appointment of a board member other than the chair. Under this process, the minister gives notice to one host jurisdiction minister for each host jurisdiction seeking agreement of the jurisdiction to the appointment. A request is made that agreement be given before the end of the 28 days, beginning on the day the notice is given. State and territory ministers may request a longer period of time to reply, in which case the process extends to 90 days.
The process for seeking agreement takes into account a host jurisdiction's need to seek a longer period in instances where there is a state or territory election and caretaker conventions preclude a response being provided. This 28-day process has been implemented administratively since it was agreed by COAG's Disability Reform Council in November 2017, where all jurisdictions agreed to provide responses to requests for agreement within 28 days, with no response taken as agreement. The bill introduces a definition for 'host jurisdiction minister' and replaces the words 'state and territory' with 'host jurisdiction' in section 127.
Labor will be moving two second reading amendments: removing the NDIA staff cap to allow the agency to do its job properly for participants of the scheme and to defer consideration of the bill, because we are concerned that it waters down states' and territories' stake in governance arrangements, that those governments and disability advocates have not been sufficiently consulted and that the Tune review, which is underway, has scope to overlap this area and is yet to report back on governance arrangements. This bill should be deferred until the findings and recommendations of the Tune review have been published. Senator Malarndirri McCarthy will be speaking on a second reading amendment regarding the issues relating to this bill and the timing of the Tune review.
The Liberals are deliberately underfunding the NDIS by $4.6 billion so they can prop up their budget position. They are doing it at the expense of Australians with disability and their families and carers. The effect of this underspend on NDIS participants has been terrible. Through the Liberals' maladministration and lack of any leadership, people are falling through the cracks as the NDIS is rolled out. This is the consistent feedback from NDIS participants, providers, carers and state and territory governments.
The very poor implementation of this scheme is clear from the state of the agency responsible for its very implementation. It has been without a CEO for nearly 170 days, with a mass exodus of its senior leadership in the past months; a staffing cap that means longer waiting time and less access to services to NDIS participants; and a substantial lack of proper representation and understanding, at the staff and board level, of lived experience of disability.
Labor has seen countless examples of the real-world impact that the Liberals' cuts and neglect have had, including families who can get a response from the NDIA or the Liberals only when they start a community campaign exposing the neglect, like Angus and his mum in Queensland, who relied on a wheelbarrow for transport on the family farm because he couldn't get access to a suitable wheelchair. I have mentioned a number of these examples before, but it is extremely important that the Senate again be reminded about some of the issues participants are having when they try to access the NDIS.
I mentioned Kayla in Penrith, born with spinal muscular atrophy, who has started a GoFundMe page to get a car so she can get to and from university; Tim in Tasmania, who died while waiting for the NDIA to deliver vital medical equipment; a wheelchair-bound man with progressive spastic paraplegia who was initially told he wasn't disabled enough; and the countless people with disability who end up in hospital because they don't have suitable NDIS plans, or the inconsistent and inadequate transport arrangements, like the cap on subsidies in Tasmania, that will leave people with disabilities isolated.
These examples show how little regard the Liberals have for people with disability and their families. Unlike the Liberals, the Labor Party will stand up for people with disability, their families and their loved ones. We'll make sure the neglect is exposed and that Australians with disabilities get the care and support they deserve. Labor will continue to stand up for people with disability and their families by making sure that they are in control of their plan through quicker, simpler and easier processes; holding the Liberals to account to increase the number of staff to clear the processing backlogs for the NDIS; resolving the issues of access to transport, employment and housing; and ensuring that the National Disability Strategy is appropriately resourced.
Why does the staffing cap need to be lifted? The staffing cap imposed by the government on the National Disability Insurance Agency is forcing the nation's disability scheme to breaking point and must be removed. Labor's vision for the scheme projected a workforce of nearly 11,000 by now. Instead, the Liberals have starved and stunted the National Disability Insurance Scheme by artificially and arbitrarily capping staffing levels for direct employees at 4,000. Our position is that the cap needs to be removed completely and the workforce needs to be at 11,000. The Liberals' cap, first imposed in 2014, has meant that the NDIA simply does not have the people to approve plans for people with disability and get vital equipment like wheelchairs, beds and hoists out to those who need them.
Labor has affirmed our pre-election commitment to scrap the cap and is urging the Liberals to do the same. This cap is causing too much dysfunction in the scheme and ultimately hurting people with disability and those who love and care for them. Groups ranging from disability advocates to the Productivity Commission also want to see the abolition of the cap. This cap is leading to massive and costly outsourcing and an over-reliance on temporary contractors who can't give people with disability any continuous service. The NDIA has reported a 600 per cent increase in the use of consultants and contractors over two years, from $70 million in 2016 to $430 million in 2018, and the agency's chair, Helen Nugent, has been embroiled in conflict claims over the lucrative outsourced contracts.
By ripping $4.6 billion out of the NDIS, overseeing executive exodus at the agency and failing to appoint a CEO for nearly 170 days, this government has done enough to harm this vital scheme. It is time that NDIS minister Stuart Robert did the right thing by releasing pressure from this overwhelmed scheme and scrapping the cap. We have heard from the Community and Public Sector Union how blowouts in processing times under the National Disability Insurance Scheme are being driven by the arbitrary cap on the number of staff the agency can employ. The joint parliamentary inquiry looking at the shortcomings of the planning processes under the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been inundated with stories of potential participants waiting months for their plans to be finalised, or up to 15 days for an email to be returned.
Fixing the scheme will not be possible without scrapping the average staffing level cap. More than 7,000 people working for the agency are employed through labour hire firms or local area coordinators. Inadequate staffing levels and insecure employment have led to high staff turnover, high workloads and a loss of expertise within the agency. Labour hire staff are placed on rolling contracts, which give them little job security and lead to high staff turnover. As a result, NDIS participants have little continuity, meaning they have had to tell their story over and over again to different staff. It is not uncommon for the NDIA to spend $430 million on labour hire in a financial year. Imagine if that were invested in ongoing employees? This is why Labor proposes the following amendment to the second reading motion. I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate calls on the Government to:
(a) remove the average staffing level cap for the National Disability Insurance Agency set out in Part 2 of Budget Paper No. 4 (2019–20); and
(b) directly employ the number of people required to administer the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013."
Labor would welcome the support of the chamber for our amendments directed at ensuring that people with disability can continue to get a fair go from the scheme and the agency that was intended to work for them. I commend the amendment to the chamber.
There is a saying very well-known to disabled people here in Australia. It is simply this: 'Nothing about us without us.' Its simplicity belies its radical nature. It's a statement that, when it comes to the systems and processes that shape our lives, we must be included in those decision-making processes—in fact, that we must lead the policy discussions in relation to disability policy. It's not a high bar or a hard ask. It is certainly that which should be able to be expected by disabled people, their families and organisations of a government that has under its responsibility a scheme as transformational and impactful to disabled people as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and, indeed, has carriage and care for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. This is a simple bar that the government has not risen to in this piece of legislation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019. In fact, their conduct in relation to this bill has been the diametric opposite of those most basic of expectations.
Let's just go through it. This ridiculous bill, for which nobody can seem to draw a direct line to it coming from anywhere other than the mind of the minister, went to an inquiry and at that inquiry disabled people and their organisations gave their view, and their view was unanimous that this legislation should not pass, yet this government comes in here this afternoon and attempts to go ahead anyway. I ask you: Whom did they talk to? Whom did they consult with?
Did they consult with people with disabilities in Australia? No. Did they consult with the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations? No. Did they consult with children and young people with disabilities in Australia? No. Did they speak to Carolyn Frohmader, from Women With Disabilities Australia? No. Did they speak to Dwayne Cranfield from the National Ethnic Disability Alliance? No. Not a single organisation did this minister reach out to. They unanimously came before the inquiry and said: do not do this. And your response has been: we will do it anyway. Shame on you. What gives you the idea? I have spent two years in here talking a lot about disability issues and our experience in Australia. And one of the things that has never failed to stun me is the arrogance shown by the non-disabled folks in this place in their belief that they can speak for, and craft policy on behalf of, disabled people and their family and organisations without talking to disabled people. It is a stunning arrogance that seems, more and more, to be given form by this minister and his attitude to his portfolio.
Let's be absolutely crystal clear about what this bill does. This bill enables the minister to stack the board of the NDIS and the Independent Advisory Council. That is its purpose, that is its mission, that is why the government is working so hard to pass it through. The NDIS was a scheme founded upon transformational principles. It still retains the possibility of transforming the lives of the four million disabled people who live in Australia. Yet under this government six years have gone by—six years of failure, broken promises and stress beyond belief. At the core of that problem has been the government's appointment to the board of the agency of people who don't know what they are doing—people from organisations that wouldn't know a social security program based on a social model of disability if it painted itself purple and danced naked in front of them. We have hospitality chiefs, people from PwC, people from McKinsey and people from the institutions which live like pilot fish off this government, swarming into this board. This board has made decision after decision that has put profit and so-called efficiencies before disabled people and their rights, resulting in a scheme that is broken to the extent that $4.6 billion in allocated funds was not expended. That is bloody convenient given that that was just the right amount to get this crew of economic vandals over the line and back into the so-called black.
I honestly can say that I entered this job with the hope and belief that, when presented with facts and information and the voice of community, there may well be an ability to craft a bipartisan agenda when it came to the NDIS. I reserved judgement on the new minister, hoping that his appointment to a dedicated portfolio signalled a fundamental shift in this government's approach to the scheme. I met with him in good faith and shared my views with him frankly and openly. However, this piece of legislation shows that he was not listening. He did not pick up the phone and talk to the folks who would have told him what the impact of his decisions were and what the views of the community that is affected by this legislation were. If you cannot pass the basic metric of talking to the people affected by the legislation you are crafting, then you have no business being in any portfolio within a hundred million miles of social policy.
There's much debate yet to come on this piece of legislation. However, the reality of the Senate is that numbers mean so much in this place. We would not be debating this bill at all if the government didn't think it had a chance of getting it through. It thinks it has a chance of getting it through because it thinks it has secured the support of Centre Alliance. It thinks it has secured the support of Centre Alliance because Centre Alliance's portfolio holder in this area, Ms Sharkie, the member for Mayo, has indicated that they will support this legislation when it comes to a vote.
A couple of weeks back, when this legislation was so comprehensively condemned by disabled people, I had much hope in my heart about our ability in this place to act as a house of review to check the government's arrogance, as we so often are called to do, and to send a clear message to this government that, should it bring the bill forward, the bill would fail. I had this confidence based on the fact that I have in the past done much good work with Centre Alliance in relation to disability, particularly with Ms Sharkie. So I approached conversations with her and her office expecting to find the friend and ally of the disability community that I had so often found in them and their team. I have been very distressed and disappointed to discover that that has not been not the case.
I have had over the course of this week many a conversation with Ms Sharkie and her office and, where once I found, on the issue of disability, a community representative of compassion and care willing to engage with the substance of legislation, instead I found a politician whose only response was that she had already given a commitment to the government which she was not willing to break. No matter how many times I have had the conversation about the impact of this legislation during the course of this week, no matter how many times disabled advocates have rung her office—and, good Lord, countless individuals have rung her office, begging that team to change its mind—they have steadfastly refused to do so. I remain of the opinion that Centre Alliance are, on the whole, good people—better than many who often occupy these benches. However, they are about to make a bad decision, and I do not believe it is a decision which the people of Mayo support.
The NDIS has the potential to be a fundamentally transformational scheme. It has the ability to empower participants to live lives of purpose and dignity in their own time and on their own terms. It was brought about because of the comprehensive failures of the state based systems. There still remains an opportunity for the scheme to be that which people need it to be, but it cannot be that. It will continue to be mutilated if the corporatisation of the scheme is allowed to continue, and that is what this bill facilitates. It greases the wheels of the corporatisation of the scheme when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that will create better outcomes for participants. And after the debacle that has been the preparation for this legislation, after the steadfast refusal of the minister to countenance the views of disabled people, I have to ask the chamber: is this really a man which this place would like to give more power to to unilaterally appoint folks to the board of the agency—a bloke that apparently can't pick up the phone to the frightfully small number of national organisations which represent disability and our families at the federal level, a bloke who can't read a dissenting report, it seems, which so clearly sets out concerns? This is not the kind of person that we want to grant additional powers to.
At such a critical moment in the scheme's life, when so much is going wrong, we in this place, now more than ever, need to be guided by the voices of disabled people. Disabled people were saying to us very clearly this afternoon: 'Do not vote for this piece of legislation. Vote it down.' I would ask all of us in this place, before we cast our vote, to consider what gives us the belief that we are in a position to ignore those views? How can we truly say that we are representing the community if we are willing to simply brush aside those opinions because they're inconvenient, because they don't meet the script that we've written for ourselves about how to act in this area, because they're not what the agenda that we've laid out for ourselves looks like? That's not what the Australian people want to see from this place. They want to see us listen and they want to see us make life easier for people who are struggling.
A tremendous effort has been expended by disabled people in this week alone. Hundreds of calls have been made to MPs across this chamber on this one question. Advocates have spent hours, backwards and forwards, on phone calls, trying to convince this minister, trying to convince Centre Alliance at a time when—do you know what, folks?—we've got other things that are also really bloody pressing. We've got a royal commission, and each one of us, each one of the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of us, are trying to process how to put into words the pain and suffering and violence that we've been subjected to. But we're not allowed to be alone with that and to deal with it. The organisations that represent us are not being given the space to prepare for that deep work, that deep supportive work. This government have brought in here an administrative bill that's part of a long-term agenda to turn it over to their appointed mates—in many the same way, I have to add, that has now transpired with the AAT, that absolute administrative nightmare. It seems to be the sole preserve of whichever particular MP that feels like it to stack his friends onto the bloody thing.
Senator Steele-John, I'm going to interrupt you. You've used the term 'bloody' on a number of occasions. I don't consider it to be particularly parliamentary. I'd rather you didn't incorporate it into your speeches. If you'd like to seek clarification from the President, please do, but I don't think it's appropriate for use in this chamber.
Fair enough—you are known as a shrinking violet of the chamber! I withdraw 'bloody'. To be a disabled person in Australia is to be born into a world where your voice is automatically counted for less. It is to be born into a society which still tells you that you're wrong and broken and that you should get out of the way of normal people going about their lives. The NDIS was created and conceived to help end that discrimination, to be an agent of change for disabled people and their families. It was conceived as an agency that would be guided by people who have a profound understanding of disability, of the community and of the barriers that we face and would work tirelessly to tear down those barriers and give us a voice.
There have been in its life brief moments where it has met the challenge, where it has been that thing which people have needed. But far too often it has become an agent of the very opposite. This drift towards a broken promise, this drift towards a broken scheme, will continue if the board is continued to be allowed to be treated as something to which people with no expertise but a good relationship with the minister can be appointed. We must block this legislation. We ought to vote against this legislation. Listen to the voices of disabled people. Do the right thing in this debate.
I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019. The amendment only focuses on the governance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and appointments to the board of the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Independent Advisory Council. This bill only relates to matters between governments and has no impact on people's access to the NDIS or the supports available to NDIS participants. But what we really need to do is focus on fixing a system that is broken. For far too long, the scheme has been without a leader—at a crucial time of rolling out the NDIS. My understanding is it was only this morning that a new CEO was appointed.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme was introduced under the previous Labor government. It is a scheme that was designed to give people who are living with disabilities a chance to have a choice and control over their lives. While there are some good experiences around people accessing the NDIS, there are also many horrific stories of those who are missing out due to the whole bureaucratic process and a process that is bogged in the sand.
Recently, in Launceston, the shadow minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Hon. Bill Shorten, and myself hosted a round table to meet with participants and providers. What we heard was a scheme that is failing. During our discussions, we met with a participant who is suffering from an acute degenerative disease that is terminal. Ms Piper has been sleeping on a couch in her lounge room for nine months. This is due to delays in receiving an answer to the bedroom modifications from the NDIS. This is a terminal woman who is having to sleep on a couch in her own lounge room because she can't get advice from the NDIS. Ms Piper would be in pain, as the couch is not necessarily comfortable, especially with the disease that she has. She's at risk of getting pressure sores that could very well lead to bigger health problems that could potentially mean her having to stay in hospital.
The unfortunate part is that this is not the first time that Ms Piper has waited on the NDIS. She had to wait six months for bathroom modifications, and then still didn't receive an answer. She ended up having to use her own savings so that she could use her own bathroom. She was very frustrated, as you can imagine. Having to wash in a bucket is not something that you should be doing as a recipient of the NDIS, and certainly not when you have a terminal disease. It's just not right. I found out that the NDIS rang Ms Piper the day after her story made the local news. Only yesterday, they approved the plans for the bedroom to be modified.
Why should families have to get to the stage that they must lobby their local senator and members of parliament? Why should families have to go to the media to make their story highlighted in the hope that they can get some support to get answers? I know from the shadow minister responsible, the Hon. Bill Shorten, that this has happened every time he's held forums around the country and participants have told their stories—they receive a phone call. That's great for those individuals, but it shouldn't be that you have to go to a forum organised by the Labor Party before you get the assistance that you deserve.
Can I say that Ms Piper's situation is not an isolated one. Other families have had their stories put out into the public domain. Some people find it hard, as they don't like to have their private lives made public. Ms Piper and her family should not have this stress for over 12 months while they're constantly fighting the government for the assistance that they need. What Ms Piper and her family should be doing is making lifelong memories for the future because of her particular circumstances so that she can leave some good and happy memories for her family—not further stress, not further pain and certainly not sleeping on her couch. Communication is a big concern when dealing with the NDIS. Emails go unanswered, phone calls are never returned and there is no consistency in the information being provided. People can ring the 1800 number and ask the same question three times and get three different answers.
Another concern is the time delays people are experiencing, especially in Launceston, my home city in the electorate of Bass, where only a skeleton staff are working. Plans and plan reviews are taking longer than needed. As a result, people are left without plans and with no money for the supports. Providers are doing love jobs as they're propping up the scheme by providing support with the verbal guarantee that they will get paid by the scheme, only to then be told that they won't be getting paid at all. Providers can't afford to do that. Businesses are writing off thousands of dollars in debt they will no longer get as they must still pay their staff and overheads while trying to be a viable business. On the one hand the NDIS is encouraging new innovative businesses to come on board, yet on the other hand it has no incentive to make businesses want to stay when there are delays in payments or no payments at all. No business can continue under those circumstances over time.
Delays in planning approvals and delays in communication are adding to the stress of participants and their families. This all comes to the outrageous underspend of $4.6 billion in the NDIS by this government just so that it can bring down a budget with a surplus. What I ask is: at what cost? The cost is to the most vulnerable in our community. The delays in participants' plans are creating bed blockages. Currently at the Launceston General Hospital there are at least four people who are waiting to have their supported independent living plans reviewed so that they can move into a house that has been specifically built for them. To put it into perspective, we have a brand-new house sitting empty while beds in hospitals are being used by clients who don't require hospital care.
In Launceston, participants are waiting up to 18 months to see allied health professionals. A young mother has just brought her situation to my attention. Her young son needs OT assistance. She's been told she'll wait for 18 months, but that doesn't guarantee that he will ultimately get the services that he needs, and it certainly doesn't guarantee he'll get them at the time he needs them. These services need to be delivered in a timely manner. Why should a young boy and his family be so stressed because the NDIS can't ensure he gets the therapy he needs? Without that therapy, the consequences to his future education are adding more stress onto his family. The time delay for people waiting for speech and occupational therapy and physio can mean that they are not getting the support that they need. Research shows that early intervention in speech is extremely important. Children having to wait these ridiculous waiting times will miss out on therapies that may help them speak, walk, write—the list goes on and on.
Service providers have concerns. One in particular has 35 residents living in a large residential facility in Hobart. This provider is working with their clients to give their clients choice and control over the type of care facility that they would like to live in. But the problem that the provider faces is not knowing whether their clients will qualify under the funding model for specialist disability accommodation. This lack of clarity over the rules and implementation of the rules makes business wary of taking on innovative ideas, fearing they will be left picking up the expenses if the NDIS pulls the pin.
One participant—for privacy reasons I'll refer to her as Belinda—is currently living in a rental property with easy access for her wheelchair. The downside is that the owner is selling the property, and Belinda is required to relocate. The housing crisis in Tasmania is bad, but it's even worse when a person has limits on their mobility. Belinda has approached the NDIS for a plan review and was told she would hear back within two weeks. She has now been waiting for seven weeks. Again, the lines of communication are broken. No-one is taking responsibility, and this waiting game could potentially strip Belinda of her freedom to live independently. Belinda could have to move into a nursing home at the age of 53. That's just not good enough.
That was not the intention when the previous Labor government rolled out and introduced the NDIS. Under this current Liberal government the NDIS system is broken and urgently needs repair. It has gone off the road and, quite frankly, it's bogged in the sand. While the scheme is kind of working for some people, for others it is not. The NDIS is a bureaucracy. Service providers are having to fund the gaps that have been created. There's not enough transition support and not enough planning on how to increase the workforce in disability to encourage people to take on job roles to support people with disabilities.
Recently in Launceston the local Liberal member for Bass, Mrs Bridget Archer, held a forum for NDIS participants. In fact she planned and advertised for three forums but had to cancel two of those. As her advertisement had stated this, the local newspaper questioned her over her commitment to the other forums and why they had to be cancelled. But the invitation was for current participants only. What about those people who are waiting to see whether they can access the NDIS? After advertising the sessions, she ended up running only one. I can say with a great deal of certainty that, at the one and only session that did go ahead, there were only five participants. In fact she had more representation from her own office and the NDIS office than she did participants. Maybe people were too scared to turn up and scared that they might be blacklisted for speaking out.
What Mrs Archer fails to realise is that there are many people in Launceston who are transitioning onto the National Disability Insurance Scheme and are waiting for plans, waiting to even meet with a local area coordinator. This is an issue, as these people are struggling each day with limited access to services. Recently I heard of a gentleman in Launceston who was unable to meet with the NDIS, due to time delays, who was walking from Launceston to Rocherlea, a nine-kilometre walk. The gentleman has a developmental delay, also has issues with his legs, was on a disability support pension and was unable to afford a taxi or a bus. How can Mrs Archer know that these are the real problems for people if she excludes them from coming and having their say to be able to highlight these problems that are occurring in her own electorate?
I wonder if Mrs Archer knows the reasons people are having such long delays to access the system. In Launceston the NDIS office has had high turnover of staff. Now the office is understaffed and is going to be advertising for more staff. You can't blame the staff for under-resourcing. You can't blame the staff for resigning and leaving their jobs, because they're so badly under-resourced. Why would this government not have already advertised for staff, knowing there's a backlog of people waiting to access the scheme? The staff in the local office at Launceston are working as hard as they can. But we are hearing that the staff are going on sick leave. They are stressed. The pressure of the workload is just too high for some of those individuals. This just isn't acceptable.
In Tasmania we're hearing that there is a shortage of supports and that this shortage of supports is seeing people being unable to access the services that they have been funded for. Participants are finding it hard to get reports written to show evidence of their needs, as they are waiting up to six months and beyond, and some providers' books are closed to new participants. The Liberal government needs to act now, to look at the issues and to fix them. There is no point holding discussions if you're not really interested in hearing about the problems and you don't have any influence—which, obviously, Mrs Archer, the local member, doesn't have—to fix the problems and to give the support that is needed to participants and to staff. They have taken one step, after more than 170 days, to finally appoint a CEO of this important organisation, but people with disabilities were promised choice and control. It's about time this government allowed people this right, instead of holding them to ransom.
Labor on this side of the chamber will continue to lobby and advocate for people with disabilities until this government show compassion to the people who are struggling with a system that is broken and a system that needs urgent attention. They should be doing everything that they can to ensure participants have access to the services that they need, and the local member, Mrs Archer, and the Liberal Senate team in Tasmania should do whatever they can to ensure that the University of Tasmania introduces more courses so that we can have more OTs, more physios and more allied health professionals trained and educated in our home state so that we can take that step that is needed to train and skill up the people who are needed and will continue to be needed around not only disability but also aged care. If we educate those people, we will then have a better chance of keeping them in the state.
But what I hear from those opposite is deadly silence. As I said, when Mrs Archer advertised for three forums, she only wanted to hear from the participants. And I can assure you that, of the five participants who were there, three of those are people who I know and who have come to me for assistance. So what is Mrs Archer, as the federal member and as a member of this Liberal government, really doing and what influence, if any, does she have to ensure the people in her electorate of Bass have access to the OTs, to the physios and to having their plans reviewed in a timely manner? And what is she doing to support providers?
I want to put on the record how much the participants and the providers appreciate the fact that Bill Shorten took the time to come to Launceston and to Hobart to listen to the real concerns. We didn't want to hear about just the good stories. Obviously we wanted to hear about the things that are working, but, more importantly, we wanted to hear about the concerns that are had so that we can play our role in making sure that this government is held accountable. Nothing less will be accepted.
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 be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I 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—
This Bill contains measures which will assist older Australians, help farmers and tourism operators, improve the efficiency of the Australian Energy Regulator, ensure that consumer privacy remains central to the Consumer Data Right regime and protect retirement savings from erosion.
Schedule 1 to the Bill extends the concessional tax treatment of genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments to those under Age Pension qualifying age.
A key feature of the treatment of these payments is the tax-free component. However, currently a person can only receive the tax-free component if they are aged below 65 years at the time of their termination or retirement from their employer.
The Government is making this change to address the situation where some older Australians who, due to their age, cannot access either the Age Pension or the tax-free component of genuine redundancy or early retirement scheme payments.
These amendments will assist older Australians who receive a genuine redundancy or early retirement scheme payment but are not yet able to receive the Age Pension.
The measure applies to genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments made to individuals on or after 1 July 2019.
Schedule 2 to the Bill provides further luxury car tax relief to those farmers and tourism operators who purchase heavy-duty passenger vehicles as part of their business. The proportion of luxury car tax that can be refunded will be increased, and the maximum amount of the refund will also be increased to $10,000. These changes will apply to eligible vehicles acquired on or after 1 July 2019.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to expand the Board of the Australian Energy Regulator from three to five members and ensure the expanded Board can operate efficiently.
This measure recognises the scope and complexity of the AER's work have changed significantly over recent years, through the growing number of energy market participants and rules to be enforced, and through its key roles in energy policies such as the Default Market Offer.
Amendments are also made to ensure the validity of future appointments under the Australian Energy Market Agreement.
This measure implements the model agreed by the COAG Energy Council on 26 October 2018. The amendments were agreed by the COAG Energy Council on 23 August 2019.
Schedule 4 to the Bill amends the Consumer Data Right to ensure that consumer privacy remains central to the regime.
It requires that the ACCC activate the power already afforded to them in the original Act to write rules allowing consumers to request that Accredited Data Recipients delete Consumer Data Right data relating to them.
By legislating that the ACCC must include rules relating to the deletion of personal data, we are encouraging longer lasting confidence in the system and helping to ensure that respect for consumer's wishes for how their data is used is a central element of the Consumer Data Right.
Schedule 5 to the Bill improves the lost and unclaimed superannuation regime to enable the Commissioner of Tax to calculate and pay interest on ATO held super they proactively reunite with members' active accounts. This is another step in the Government's agenda to ensure that peoples' hard-earned retirement savings are protected from erosion.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 contains a number of technical amendments to the Treasury legislation. Schedule 1 extends the concessional taxation treatment for genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments to people who are over 65 years but under pension age. This amendment is necessary because of the change by the government to the pension age. It should have been done some time ago, and further delays will only cause harm to this cohort of Australians. Schedule 2 allows tourism operators and primary producers to receive a full refund of the luxury car tax. This will support businesses who are investing in new vehicles for business purposes.
Schedule 3 expands the board of the Australian Energy Regulator from three to five members. This will allow greater oversight of the AER's work and allow for a greater range of expertise to be represented on the board. Schedule 4 amends the consumer data right legislation passed several weeks ago. Labor insisted that during the debate the consumer data rules set by the ACCC include the right for customers to have their data deleted. This amendment gives effect to that. Schedule 5 fixes a drafting error in the superannuation legislation to allow for regulations to set rates of interest to be paid on lost superannuation accounts held by the ATO. Labor supports this bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019. This is a bill that I had a bit to do with during the Senate inquiry on these measures, and I've had a lot of concerns with the process, as I have a lot of concerns with the ongoing operations of the NDIS. The Greens have always been very strongly supportive of the NDIS. However, we have been very critical on many occasions of its implementation and with the interpretation of the bills at the time. This particular bill changes the process of appointments and terminations to the National Disability Insurance Agency, the NDIA, board and the Independent Advisory Committee, the IAC, from one that requires unanimous support from the states and territories to a process whereby the minister can override the states and appoint their own pick, thereby allowing the minister to stack the board, potentially, and the IAC.
There's been a lot of opposition from disability advocacy groups on this particular matter, because it's very, very important that people on these bodies have lived experience. No matter how sympathetic you are, you don't know what it's like to have the lived experience of a disabled person.
As I alluded to a moment ago, in August there was a Senate inquiry into this bill. The evidence given to the hearing and in the submissions overwhelmingly recommended against the passage of this bill due to concerns about the ability of the government to influence the independence of the NDIS. It is more important than ever that that independence is maintained given the problems that we've had with the operation of the NDIS virtually since it began. We've seen problems with planners, problems with advice being given and problems with accessing supports. We've seen delay after delay after delay, in terms of people being able to get their packages. We've seen inappropriate information being given and inappropriate decisions being made.
I had somebody in the south-west of WA who didn't get transport put into their package because they could catch public transport. They happen to live in Manjimup. Those of you from Western Australia will know that there isn't a bus service, there isn't public transport, from Manjimup to Bunbury, where people frequently have to go to seek treatment, to see specialists and to even access some of their equipment. So what's happening is that carers and support workers are driving people up from these remote locations—or more remote locations, because I wouldn't exactly call Manjimup remote. I'm sure it is happening all over Australia. They're driving people up in their own vehicles sometimes, which is not the appropriate thing to do, and at their own cost. That is simply ridiculous. What that indicates is that the planners, the people making these decisions, have no idea whatsoever about the circumstances of the particular person or the regions in which they're living.
The government did not consult with disabled people, or their representative peak organisations, in writing this bill. However, throughout the inquiry, they did hear from the disability community and their peak organisations that there is overwhelming opposition to this bill. We definitely heard it throughout the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. Both the ALP and ourselves contributed dissenting reports. There have been no substantive changes to this bill since that inquiry. The deeply concerning provisions remain, and the sector continues to express its deep concerns about it. We are strongly opposed to the passage of this bill and implore the opposition to stick with their dissenting position following the inquiry. We also urge the crossbench to support the wishes of the disability community, which is so avidly working to improve the NDIA. We all want to see a strong, very engaged NDIA.
Unfortunately, it seems that the government is continuing their obsession with the budget surplus and wanting to pass this sort of legislation to give them the power to potentially stack the board of the NDIA with more of their corporate mates. The NDIA board and the Independent Advisory Council should be just that: they need to be totally independent from the government to allow them to always act in the best interests of disabled people who are participating in the NDIS. As I said at the beginning of my speech, lived experience of disability should be critical for the board of the National Disability Insurance Agency to function in the best interests of disabled people, yet this is not the case. When we initially debated the NDIS legislation, this point was made repeatedly. These bodies needs to be independent. Disabled people's organisations were very clear at the time that there need to be people with lived experience making up these organisations, because it's only then that we'll get decisions that truly reflect the needs of disabled people.
The board has been largely filled with former corporate CEOs from the banking and financial sector. People who are good at balancing budgets do not necessarily have all the skills necessary to understand the issues that disabled people are facing or what it takes to improve their lives in our community. For example, Mr Robert De Luca, who was the past CEO of the NDIA—
Debate interrupted.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Was the IMF wrong to downgrade its forecast for Australia's economic growth by four times as much as advanced economies as a whole?
It's not up to the government to comment. Obviously the IMF makes its judgement based on its assessment of global economic trends and pressures on the global economy. Obviously it has made a judgement based on global trade tensions and geopolitical issues that everybody knows about, that a further downgrade in global growth was warranted, and has made some judgement on the flow-on consequences on various countries around the world.
Australia is a particularly globally exposed open-trading economy. Obviously what happens in the global economy is particularly relevant to us. The circumstance that is unique to Australia compared to others is that not only did we have to deal with a significant flood early in the year but we are also dealing with the economic impact of a significant drought in large parts of Australia. On our side of politics, we understand this. And we understand that it is important to stick to the plan to build a stronger economy into the future because that is the best way to ensure that Australians today and into the future have the best possible opportunity to get ahead—and that is what we're doing.
If we had adopted the Labor position that was taken to the last election, the economy today would be weaker and unemployment would be higher. In fact, very soon we'll be hearing from Senator Cash about the employment figures today, and what you can see is that, under our government, more new jobs are being created—more than 1.4 million jobs since we were first elected. Employment growth is at a record level. There is employment growth of 2.6 per cent compared to a forecast of 1.5 per cent. The number of Australians in jobs is at a record high, the number of women in jobs is at a record high, workforce participation is at a record high and real wages growth is higher than it was when Labor lost government and above the long-term trend.
The economy under the coalition is in a stronger position than it would have been under Labor. That is what— (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. There are nearly two million Australians looking for work or looking for more work. Why is the Morrison government failing to heed the advice of the RBA governor, the IMF, state and territory governments, charities and business and refusing to act to boost the Australian economy?
I completely reject the premise of the question. This government is acting to build a stronger economy. We delivered a pro-growth budget in April which included a further $158 billion in income tax relief, taking income relief over the next decade to more than $300 billion. That is putting $300 billion back into the pockets of hardworking Australians which they are able to spend or invest in the Australian economy as they see fit.
As the governor of the Reserve Bank has made very clear—and we agree with his assessment—the Australian economy is expected to gradually strengthen into the future on the back of lower interest rates, lower taxes, continued high investment in infrastructure and a pick-up in the resources sector. We will continue to stick to the plan. We are not going to get the Labor way, the high-taxing, high-spending, anti-business, socialist agenda way, because we know that your way would have made the Australian economy weaker—and the Australian people know so as well.
Senator Gallagher, a further supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. Under the coalition the unemployment rate in Australia has risen above the OECD average for the first time in nearly two decades. When will the Morrison government finally take action to boost the economy and protect jobs?
I mean, the chutzpah for the Labor Party to ask the question! When we came into government, one of the terrible indicators was the rising unemployment rate. The outgoing shadow Treasurer of the Labor Party, Chris Bowen, was so concerned about what they had left behind that he said the test for the incoming coalition government was whether we can keep the unemployment rate below 6¼ per cent. I don't think he would have said that in order to give us an easy key performance indicator. I think he thought that it might have been a stretched target to try to keep the unemployment rate below 6¼ per cent. Guess what? It's at 5.2 per cent today and 1.4 million new jobs have been created under our government. Your high-taxing and high-spending agenda would have made the economy weaker and pushed up the unemployment rate, which would have caused wages to fall over time. The Australian people at the election clearly considered the alternative agendas and they knew that they were better off with our plan to build a stronger economy than with your socialist agenda.
My question is to Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about the results of the recent Australian labour force figures for the month of September?
I thank Senator Paterson for the question. I'm going to have to build on what our outstanding finance minister has already outlined for the Senate today, and that is that for the month of September we yet again saw the Australian economy creating jobs—and, colleagues, for 36 consecutive months now—because of the policies of the Morrison coalition government. Every single month we have seen the economy create jobs. That has never, ever happened before in Australia's history. We now see full-time employment in Australia at record levels. We also have a record number of Australians in employment. With the figures for September, we now see that almost 13 million Australians are in employment because of the policies that the coalition government has put in place. We also see that over 60 per cent of the jobs the economy has created in the last 12 months have been full-time jobs. And, as the Minister for Women is well aware, we also have a record number of women in employment in Australia, including a record number in full-time employment. It is at a record high of over 6,110,000.
Since we came to government, we have put policies in place to ensure that the employers out there, the job creators of the country, are able to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. Since we were elected to office, this government has put policies in place that have created almost 1.5 million jobs. That is because we understand the benefits of a strong economy— (Time expired)
Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?
How is the Morrison government delivering stable and certain economic growth and ensuring more Australians are given an opportunity to find a job?
It is because we have a plan. We have a plan to continue to ensure that the businesses out there, the job creators in the country, are able to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. We said to the Australian people that if they elected us on 18 May—and they did—we would put policies in place to create an additional 1.25 million jobs over the next five years, and we are putting the policies in place to ensure that the economy is able to do that. We are, of course, returning the budget to surplus—2019-20—which is something those opposite haven't managed to do since 1989.
We are also delivering record infrastructure investment—over $100 billion—because construction and infrastructure investment create jobs. What are we also doing? There is $158 billion in tax relief for nine million hardworking Australia. (Time expired)
Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?
Minister, I hope the answer to this question is no. Are there any policy risks that you are aware of that could jeopardise these record figures?
The answer is actually yes, and it is, of course, the policies of the Australian Labor Party, policies that were comprehensively rejected by the Australian people on 18 May, because the Australian people understood that $387 billion in additional taxes being imposed on the economy would see job losses in Australia.
Colleagues, the reality is that if those opposite had been elected, as of 1 July this year, their retiree tax, their superannuation tax and their tax on family businesses would have taken affect. We were elected as a job-creating government, and we will continue to put in place the economic framework and the economic policies to ensure that the businesses out there are able to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians, because businesses create jobs. Again, with today's labour force figures, a record number of Australians are in employment. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. After the IMF downgraded Australia's growth outlook for this year by four times more than downgrades for advanced economies as a whole, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Mr Innes Willox, said: 'Our economy needs a spark to regain momentum.' Mr Willox called for an acceleration of shovel-ready infrastructure investment and public works and the bringing forward of income tax relief. Is Mr Willox correct?
In this business there's always a variety of people who have a variety of views on what should or shouldn't happen. We have a plan; we work to a plan to build a stronger economy and to create more jobs. This includes substantial income tax relief. It includes an ambitious $100 billion infrastructure investment pipeline. It includes an ambitious free trade agenda, which is designed to help our exporting businesses sell more Australian products and services around the world and create more jobs here in Australia. It includes our plan to bring the costs of electricity down. It includes our plan to make it easier to do business in Australia by reducing the cost of doing business through our deregulation agenda. When it comes to infrastructure, it's a matter of public record that we are prepared to move sooner on those projects that the state and territory governments are able to move sooner on, where that makes sense. It is also a matter of record that some time ago the Prime Minister wrote to premiers and chief ministers to invite them to work with the Commonwealth to identify those projects that can be delivered sooner.
We will never do what the Labor Party did, which was to recklessly throw money out the door on putting pink batts into houses, which then had to be taken out because the roofs were burning. And, do you know what, the beds were burning too! We're not going to go and spend billions of dollars on school halls that were not required. We are going to invest Australian taxpayers' money wisely on economy-enhancing, productivity-enhancing infrastructure that will build a stronger future. That is our responsibility. That is what we will be doing. Clearly, if the Labor Party had won the election, they would have increased the tax burden on the economy by $387 billion, which would have cost jobs and would have hurt families around Australia. We will stick to our plan. We will not be pushed around by the Labor Party, which has a very bad track record.
Senator Watt, a supplementary question.
After the IMF said, 'The monetary policy cannot be the only game in town', the former Liberal Treasurer Mr Peter Costello warned: 'Monetary policy has run its race.' Given the minister's earlier answers, does this mean that Mr Costello is a socialist?
No. The one thing I can absolutely, 100 per cent guarantee you is that Mr Costello, a giant of Australian politics—arguably the greatest Treasurer of all time—is not a socialist.
Honourable senators interjecting—
What I also can tell you about Mr Costello is that he is opposed to Labor's high-taxing, high-spending agenda, because Mr Costello, like every single person on this side of the chamber, knows that Labor's agenda would have hurt the economy and cost jobs and, indeed, it would have left every Australian family worse off. We will continue to stick to our sensible, balanced plan to build a stronger economy to ensure that the Australian economy is as resilient as possible. Just because the Labor Party can't get their socialist agenda up, it doesn't mean that our plan for lower taxes, more infrastructure, more free trade agreements and low electricity prices is not a plan that will make the economy stronger. Of course it will.
Order! There was a little too much noise during that answer. I'll call Senator Watt when there's silence. Senator Watt.
I think there are a whole range of people considering their political ideology right now. The RBA Governor, the IMF, state and territory governments, charities and business are all calling for the government to stimulate the economy. When will the government finally take action to boost the Australian economy?
I know that the Labor Party is allergic to tax cuts. Let me tell you something about tax cuts: tax cuts leave more money in people's pockets. That stimulates the economy. I'll say it to you again, because we haven't had any questions recently about wages growth: effective wages growth under our government is substantially higher than it was under yours, because what matters to the Australian people is their take-home pay. Their take-home pay is higher (1) because the real wages growth is higher than it was under Labor and (2) because we have put the money that they've worked hard for back into their pockets through $300 billion worth of income tax relief. More money in workers' pockets stimulates the economy, and you were against it. You went to the last election campaigning for higher taxes on income, on investment, on housing, on energy, on anything that moved, and the Australian people condemned you for it. They voted to keep you out of government because of it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. There's an old political joke in this country that goes something like this: what have all Young Liberals got in common? They were children who never learnt to share. In these precarious times, with so many clouds on the horizon—
Senator Bernardi interjecting—
I can understand why you don't find that funny. With so many Australians doing it tough and needing a leg up, wouldn't you agree that now is the time to share the budget surplus with all Australians to directly stimulate the economy, including by raising Newstart, increasing the minimum wage, reversing the cuts to penalty rates, removing the cap on public sector wages and massively increasing infrastructure spending?
Senator Whish-Wilson has just proven that he has never spent time at a Young Liberals meeting, because he clearly doesn't know what brings Young Liberals together and what brings Liberals around Australia together. That is because we understand that the best way to ensure Australians today and in the future have the best possible opportunity to get ahead is to support individual freedom, support free enterprise, reward effort and encourage people to stretch themselves. We know from countries around the world that policies that are based on an agenda supporting freedom, supporting free enterprise, rewarding effort and supporting and incentivising people to have a goal is the best way to build the strongest possible economy so that individuals, their families and communities have the best possible living standards. That is what brings Young Liberals, Liberals and, I'm sure, Nationals around Australia together. That is the agenda that the Australian people voted for at the last election after being presented with the socialist agenda of those opposite, who wanted to push up taxes and put their hands into people's pockets. People understood that would have reduced opportunity. We are for more opportunity and more jobs, and that is why we joined this great movement that is the Liberal cause.
In June this year, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, said, 'If the government can build productive capacity by borrowing at low interest rates, it seems like that is a good thing to do.' Minister, given that interest rates have never been lower in our country's history, why is your government still obsessed with paying down debt rather than borrowing to build and stimulate the economy and set up Australia for the new century?
Let me just make this point: we are totally focused on making sure that the Australian economy is as strong and as resilient as possible in an uncertain world. We are an open trading economy. We are a globally focused and globally exposed trading economy. As we have seen in recent times, what happens in the world has an impact on our domestic economy. Because of that, as part of a plan to build a stronger and more resilient economy, one very important feature is to ensure that government lives within its means so that our funding for welfare services, health, education and national security is on a fiscally sustainable basis. The reason we are committed to paying down the level of debt is to ensure that we protect future generations from that burden of additional taxes and deeper spending cuts in order to ensure that our balance sheet can withstand future economic shocks that could come our way because of what happens in the world. (Time expired)
Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question?
Speaking of shocks, just yesterday the IMF also called the governments internationally to borrow to build, including to fund infrastructure investment to address climate change. Minister, if we're not yet in an economic emergency, we are in a climate emergency. Why won't you use the government's borrowing capacity to build the clean energy future that would address the economic woes this country faces as well as the current climate emergency?
Firstly, I reject the premise of the question, and let me say again that those of us on this side of the chamber—Liberal-National party senators—believe in environmental protection that is economically responsible. As far as climate change is concerned, I've said many times in this chamber that we are committed to effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible.
Senator Wong interjecting—
And here we have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate interjecting. This is from a party that doesn't have a policy on climate change. What is your policy on climate change? What is the Labor Party policy on climate change? They've got 30 policies on climate change, and nobody knows what the other's policy is. Again, on this side we have a plan to meet our 2030 emissions reduction target. We will stick to that plan. We'll deliver on those targets. When we came into government we were running behind our Kyoto 2020 target. We are now running ahead because of the actions of this government. So, don't give us any lectures when it comes to emissions reduction. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. At a forum held in Murray Bridge on 2 October, the minister argued against the need for an increase to Newstart, saying:
… all it would do is give drug dealers more money and give pubs more money.
The minister claims the reporting is misleading, but the chief executive officer of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, Terese Edwards, who attended the forum, labelled the comments as 'deplorable'. Who is telling the truth, Minister—you, or Ms Edwards?
Thank you, Senator Gallacher, for your question. Can I categorically state in this place that the comments that were reported in The Murray Valley Standard that were attributed to me were misquoted and misrepresented. But what I would say is that one of the issues we were talking about at that particular forum was in relation to how we help people who find themselves with significant barriers to employment to deal with those barriers. One of the things that was specifically being discussed at that time was how we can, for people who find themselves in a situation where they have addictions—whether they be drug addictions, alcohol addictions or gambling addictions—put programs in place to assist those people to deal with those addictions.
Those opposite may seek to verbal me, but I can absolutely assure you that it doesn't matter what they say; it will not change the resolve of this government to help people who find themselves without a job and find themselves with significant barriers to employment to get past those barriers. We are absolutely committed to making sure that any Australian who wants a job will be put into a position where we can assist them in getting a job, and there are myriad different ways we are doing that. Those opposite who come in here and seek to trivialise this really important issue by making these sorts of statements—shame on you. We will remain absolutely focused on making sure that when we identify that people have barriers to getting into work we will work with them to address those barriers. The only thing that is disgusting in here is the misrepresentation that you seek to perpetuate.
Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question?
One quarter of Newstart recipients are over the age of 55, and the number of over-55s on Newstart has surged by 45 per cent under this government. What portion of payments to this cohort does this government allege is going to drug dealers and pubs?
I'm very disappointed that you continue to trivialise the fact that some people actually face significant barriers, on the basis of addiction, to getting into employment. I can assure you that this government does not trivialise that and will continue to work with people who find themselves with barriers as a result of addiction. We will keep helping them to overcome those barriers. But thank you very much for the question in relation to older Australians. This government recognises that there are a number of older Australians who find themselves with additional barriers to being able to get into work. That is why this government is actually focusing and specifically targeting measures so that we can assist older Australians to get back into the workforce. In fact in the 2018-19 budget we introduced a measure called the More Choice for a Longer Life Package, which actually addresses providing skills and job-access-ready initiatives to help older Australians who find themselves without a job to be skilled-up to get a job so that they can get back into the workforce.
Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question?
Given the minister has categorically ruled out saying those words, will the minister now release the transcript or recording her office claims exists?
There has been a report in this particular publication subsequently. I'm not sure it's exactly what I said, but it does actually—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Do you actually want to hear what I've got to say or not?
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
If the minister is correcting her first answer, she should be clear about that.
Ministers have opportunity during or after question time for debate about their statements.
I categorically state that I am not correcting my first answer. My first answer was absolutely accurate. What I am saying to you is there was a subsequent story in the Murray Valley Standard that provided greater clarification around what the journalist actually thought I said. Be a little bit careful, because you're on pretty shaky ground here if you want to start talking about what I said and what I didn't say.
Point of order on direct relevance: Senator Gallacher has asked whether or not the minister will release the recording or transcript her office claims to have. I ask you to remind the minister of that question.
Quite right. The minister was dealing with so many interjections that I was having trouble hearing her myself. I will ask those on my left to allow me to hear the minister's answer.
I'm more than happy to direct you to the Murray Valley Standard's subsequent article, which has a transcript in it. I'm also more than happy to direct those opposite to the comments that I made on Sky TV a couple of weeks ago. Once again I'd say that we are focused on fixing the issue— (Time expired)
My question is for Senator Cormann, representing the Prime Minister. On 3 October 2019 the Prime Minister, during an address to the Lowy Institute, highlighted that 'unelected international bureaucracies' are pushing for a 'borderless global community' that aims to damage 'our livelihoods, our safety and our sovereignty'. Twenty-five years ago, your state's Liberal Premier, Richard Court, warned of the dangers of unelected international bureaucracies, in his book Rebuilding the Federation, and specifically named the United Nations. Twenty-three years ago, Pauline Hanson, MP, called out the UN's 1992 Rio Declaration Agenda 21. When can we expect the Australian government to remove us from the following damaging treaties, protocols and declarations: the UN's 1975 Lima Declaration, the UN's 1992 Rio Declaration for 21st century global governance, the UN's 1996 Kyoto agreement and the UN's 2015 Paris Agreement?
Let me just say right upfront that I was at the Lowy Institute speech by the Prime Minister. It was a great speech, and I would invite all colleagues to read it in its full context.
What I would also say, by way of a second point, is that Australia is the world's 13th largest economy, and we do take our international responsibilities very seriously. But that doesn't mean that, from time to time, we don't express a view about things that could be improved when it comes to the international architecture that we operate in. From time to time, it needs updating. Indeed, we have expressed the view in relation to our multilateral trading infrastructure that there are some improvements that could and should be made, and that is something that we are articulating forcefully in the appropriate forum.
You've also mentioned Richard Court. Senator Dean Smith and I both had the privilege to serve in the office of the outstanding and distinguished former Western Australian Premier Richard Court. That was a very memorable period. Richard Court did a lot of great things for the great state of Western Australia, so I'm pleased you're aware of all contributions he's made over the years.
Let me conclude: I would encourage every senator in this chamber and, indeed, all Australians to read precisely what the Prime Minister said in his speech at the Lowy Institute. There's a lot of verballing going on, in particular by the Labor Party, and selective quoting, as Senator Payne quite rightly points out. We are absolutely committed to doing the right thing internationally, and we take our international responsibilities very seriously indeed.
Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?
Twenty-five years ago, as I said, Liberal Premier Richard Court warned of the dangers of unelected bureaucracies in his book, Rebuilding the Federation. He said: 'These international agreements are made primarily by people outside Australia. The terms and conditions are set by officials from other countries. While Australia takes part in the negotiations, it does not exercise a dominant influence. The foreign countries do.' For the past 25 years, why have Liberal governments ignored this advice? It's time to put Australia first.
While I once served in the office of former Premier Richard Court—now His Excellency the Australian Ambassador to Japan, and he's doing an outstanding job there, too—let me just say that I represent the Prime Minister in this chamber, and not a former Premier of the great state of Western Australia. I note the comments that Senator Roberts has provided, but let me also refer the chamber to my first answer, and that is that Australia, as a middle power, does take its international responsibilities seriously, and we are an active and constructive participant in all of the relevant international fora, always pursuing Australia's national interest. We are always pursuing and advancing Australia's national interest. Of course, we are represented with distinction by our outstanding foreign minister, Senator Payne, who does a great job on our behalf. We are represented by fine public servants— (Time expired)
Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question?
Although the Prime Minister didn't quite have the courage to name the United Nations as the unelected international bureaucracy that he was condemning, when can we expect Australia to have the courage to exit the United Nations and allow Australians, through the ballot box, to determine Australia's future, rather than unelected, unaccountable socialist bureaucrats?
We are a founding member of the United Nations. We will not be leaving the United Nations, but that doesn't mean that we can't strive to improve the operation of international bodies that we are part of. Any organisation made up of human beings is always able to be improved; it's not ever flawless. So I think that it is quite appropriate for the Prime Minister, in a comprehensive foreign policy speech, to assess all of the issues that we believe are important from Australia's national interest point of view, and that is indeed what he did. I commend the Prime Minister's speech to you again as I did before.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. How does the government's strong economic management assist exporters financially grow their businesses and grow more jobs, especially for our small- and medium-sized enterprises?
I thank Senator Sinodinos for his question, which I may boldly predict could well be his last question in this place. In doing so, I thank Senator Sinodinos for his service to the Senate and to our nation and congratulate him on his valedictory speech last night. It was a valedictory speech that epitomised Senator Sinodinos's depth, substance, wisdom and sense of vision. In it he outlined many great policy challenges for our nation and ways in which they should be tackled. He demonstrated his policy drive in areas such as space and research cooperation—areas that I am confident will stand him in good stead in his next career working for Australia and for Australians and their interests and on their behalf with the United States, which is our largest investment market. It is our largest investment partner and, of course, a key trading partner as well.
It's through agencies such as Austrade and Export Finance Australia that our government, with a strong economy, is able to keep helping Australian exporters continue to succeed and export more into the future. Austrade provides expertise and advice through a network of 117 offices across the globe, helping exporters in all of those cities and markets so they are able to succeed and sell a record value of Australian goods and services into those markets. Export Finance Australia provides valuable financial expertise and solutions to help businesses grow. Last financial year, Export Finance Australia completed 147 transactions, providing over $377 million of support, in terms of financial service assistance, to 107 businesses. But what did that generate and create? It created some $2.3 billion worth of export contracts supporting more than 13,600 jobs. That's what it all comes back to—job opportunities for Australians.
Senator Sinodinos, a supplementary question?
It's wonderful that there are so many people in the audience to hear Senator Birmingham's great disquisition. What impact have the government's trade policies had on growing the volume and value of Australian exports?
We have a record number of Australian businesses that are exporting now. More than 53,000 Australian businesses are engaged in exporting across the globe, including 46,000 small and medium sized enterprises. That's an increase of more than 18 per cent since our government was elected. There are 18 per cent more businesses across all sectors of the economy that are engaged in export activity, and it's estimated that more than 240,000 trade related jobs have been created in the last five years. So, when we think about the employment strength that Senator Cash and Senator Cormann were speaking of earlier today and the jobs growth in Australia, a huge component of that is because of the growth in our export positions. Yes, that has been supported by our trade agreements and by opening up market access across the Australian economy, but it has also been supported by the direct assistance that we as a government provide to help Australian businesses enter those markets. That's why we've grown so many additional exporters.
Senator Sinodinos, a final supplementary question?
What are the government's further plans to support more businesses to expand and grow through export related activities across the Pacific region?
We have many plans to help Australian businesses grow. We strive to see a further 10,000 Australian businesses engaged in export activities. We want to see and ensure that trade agreements provide market access to around 90 per cent of Australia's trade in the future. Our plan is to continue to provide that practical assistance through Export Finance Australia and Austrade to help that greater number of businesses sell more quality Australian farm produce and agricultural produce and to make sure that our farmers are well placed, when the drought ends, to be able to grow those volumes and the value of those exports. We're going to continue to invest in the support of all of our traditional sectors, as well as in the research and modern sectors as well. In terms of particular plans across the broader Pacific region and our advocacy in the United States of America, we'll have a great advocate in growing Australian exports and trade into the future. We wish you well, Arthur.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. Minister, I want to ask about the report Economic and social impacts of recreational hunting and shooting, released by the Department of Health in September 2019. How much of the health budget was spent on this report? Which minister commissioned it? Does the minister believe that this is an appropriate use of the public health budget?
Thank you very much, Senator Faruqi, for the question. I have to say, I do have a comprehensive brief from the minister, who is doing an outstanding job. In relation to that incredibly specific question, I will have to take it on notice and refer it to you.
Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?
Minister, many of the assertions of the report have been rightly ridiculed, such as somehow people who shoot animals have a higher level of wellbeing than people who don't shoot animals. Does the minister agree with that assertion, and is this borne out by any other evidence that you are aware of?
They're not wrong.
Perhaps Minister McKenzie would like to respond to that question?
I'm happy to.
I have to say thank you to Senator McKenzie for some information in relation to the question. I do represent the Minister for Health. I have to say, for such a specific question, if you wanted an answer, you are entitled to provide notice or ask next week in estimates. Had you provided notice, I could have asked the minister and brought you a more comprehensive answer.
I'm now informed Australia's national sports plan, Sport 2030, outlines the need for a diverse sport industry with a wide range of activities to support more Australians to be more active. The report shows recreational hunting and sport shooting are regulated activities which engage individuals, clubs and communities across Australia. Recreational hunting and shooting can contribute physical, social, mental health and wellbeing benefits to participants. The activities have links and pathways to target shooting sports in Australia, which a number of members here participate in. Noting the government supports accessibility to— (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?
Minister, isn't it true that this research isn't worth the paper that it's written on and that it's merely an attempt by the shooting lobby to promote itself by taxpayer expense, aided and abetted by Minister McKenzie?
I'll give you a very simple response: the answer to the question is no.
My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister confirm that in September Newstart payments were indexed by only 24c per day?
I thank Senator Dodson for his question. I can confirm that in September, as it was in March this year and as it is every other year, Newstart was indexed the same way—that is, by CPI. For the last 20 years it has been indexed this way, including under the government that I have been a part of for the last six years. It's also the same way and by the same mechanism that it was increased by your government for the years that you were in government.
What I can say is that Newstart is a safety net payment that is provided to people who find themselves without a job. Clearly nobody on this side of the chamber—and I'm sure nobody on that side or anywhere in this chamber—would suggest that living without a job would be easy, but the one thing that we are absolutely committed to, as a government, is to make sure that we not only create the jobs but create the pathways to the jobs and to break down the barriers.
This morning's news about the increased growth in employment is really good news for Australians who find themselves without a job, because it's by the creation of more jobs that we are able to increase the level of participation of Australians in the workforce, because we know that the health and wellbeing of Australians is enhanced by them having a job. The way that we continue to create jobs is by continuing to grow the economy and by making sure that the economy is strong, because it is the economy that creates jobs and it is the jobs that the economy creates that are the things that are an absolutely essential component of us being able to assist people off welfare and into a job. But that's not all we're doing. We understand that providing that safety net is not our only responsibility. We have further responsibilities to make sure that we create pathways to jobs and that we continue to break down the barriers to enable people who currently find themselves without work into work.
Senator Dodson, a supplementary question?
The Reserve Bank governor has said that boosting the rate of Newstart would be, 'good for the economy'. Why is the Morrison government refusing to do something that's good for Australians and good for the economy?
The government is absolutely focused on policies that have the most positive impact on the economy, like boosting productivity, creating jobs and, of course, moving people from welfare into a job. But, clearly, welfare is not a stimulus; it is designed as a safety net. The proportion of Australians currently receiving working-age income support payments has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years. It's down to 14.3 per cent. There are 230,000 fewer Australians on working-age payments than there were in 2014. That's 230,000 families who now have a job to be able to provide the assistance to their families. So, focusing on the creation of jobs, we make no apology for creating jobs and getting people into work, because we believe that's the best way—
Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Dodson, a final supplementary question?
The governor of the Reserve Bank, KPMG, the Business Council of Australia, ACOSS, Deloitte Access Economics, the Country Women's Association and the former Prime Minister Mr John Howard have called for the government to increase the rate of Newstart. Given the minister famously told pensioners that what they received was 'generous', does the minister also think that Newstart is generous?
I'm sorry that you are trivialising this really important issue, like your other colleague, because I can absolutely—
Order! Senator Wong on a point of order?
I ask the minister to withdraw that. Senator Patrick Dodson is not trivialising this issue.
I'm going to leave that in the hands of Senator Ruston. It wasn't unparliamentary. I don't consider it to be a reflection given the jousting that has been happening and the interjections across the chamber. I'll leave it in the hands of the senator. I allowed you to make the point, Senator Wong, but I might say that some of the interjections have been particularly robust this question time. Senator Ruston.
I thank Senator Dodson for his question because I can absolutely assure this chamber that getting people from welfare into a job is something that this government takes very, very seriously. It's the creation of those jobs that's important. But can I just say: Australia's comprehensive welfare system recognises that there are times when Australians are down on their luck. And we need to make sure that we have a safety net, not just for this generation but for future generations, to make sure that we're here to help them in their time of need, and not just when they find themselves in tough times but to make sure that the safety net is in place for as long as they need it, but it has to be sustainable. And we will continue to work on all of the components and all of the elements that are essential for a stronger Australia.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate of any continuing concerns the government has about the consular case of Australian citizen Mr Jock Palfreeman in Bulgaria?
I thank Senator Henderson for her question. I would like to note that the Australian government welcomes Jock Palfreeman's release from the Busmantsi detention centre in Bulgaria early yesterday morning. He is now in the community and that is a positive step. However, we are concerned that he remains unable to leave Bulgaria due to a travel ban that dates back to 2011. Mr Palfreeman and his legal team are challenging that ban and the Australian government is following that process closely. Also, the Prosecutor-General of Bulgaria is seeking a review of the process followed in granting Mr Palfreeman's parole. While the parole decision itself cannot be appealed, the Prosecutor-General is questioning technicalities about the handling of the case. We understand that this is outside Bulgaria's normal legal process, and we would be concerned if non-legal issues were seen to have an influence on this process. I'm advised that the decision by the court on that matter may take up to two months, which would mean that Mr Palfreeman continues to face uncertainty until early December. We have called and continue to call for the Bulgarian authorities to allow Mr Palfreeman to travel to Australia given his paroled status. I stress that we respect the independence of the Bulgarian court and wish to see it make a decision according to the rule of law.
Senator Henderson, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise the Senate of what consular assistance the government has provided to Mr Palfreeman?
The government has provided everything required to date to assist Mr Palfreeman to leave Bulgaria as soon as possible, and we will continue to do so. We are in contact with him and we'll provide every assistance to him as his case moves forward. He has received consular help throughout his case, both before and since the parole decision on 19 September. Officials have of course monitored his case. They have attended court proceedings and they have made over 100 prison visits in the lengthy time he has been in prison to check on his welfare. We have provided additional consular resources to our diplomatic post in Athens, which enables us to have a presence in Sofia, the Bulgarian capital, because we do not have a permanent mission there.
Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister outline to the Senate what representations the Australian government has made to the Bulgarian government on Mr Palfreeman's case?
We are engaging with Bulgarian immigration authorities to seek clarification about facilitating Mr Palfreeman's ability to depart from Bulgaria. Previously, I have also raised our concerns about his case directly with my Bulgarian counterpart, Minister Ekaterina Zakharieva, on the sidelines of the United Nations. I have followed up that conversation and further conveyed our concerns in writing. I have also raised Mr Palfreeman's case in writing with our European Union counterparts, High Representative Federica Mogherini and EU Vice-President Timmermans, expressing our concern about his long immigration detention following the parole decision. In addition, our officials continue to raise our concerns with senior Bulgarian officials and authorities and the relevant ministers in Bulgaria, and we seek due process to be applied to Mr Palfreeman's matter to enable him to travel to Australia.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In an article in this morning's TheAustralian entitled 'It's Brian Houston, and the Prime Minister does have a problem', Niki Savva said:
Taxpayers and voters have every right to know who was there—or not—and why, and media has a duty to ask. It is not gossip, and it is everybody's business, not just the Prime Minister's.
Why has the Prime Minister repeatedly refused to deny reports that he sought to have Brian Houston invited to the White House?
I note that Senator Keneally has read The Australian this morning. It is good to know that the Murdoch press is now getting favour with Senator Keneally. Let me just say that I have got nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement on the topic.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
In question time on Monday the Prime Minister again refused to say whether or not he sought to have Brian Houston invited to the White House. Did the Prime Minister or his office seek to have Brian Houston invited to the White House—yes or no?
I refer Senator Keneally to my primary answer.
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Let's try it this way: why did the Prime Minister seek to have Brian Houston invited to the White House?
I don't have anything to add to my previous two answers.
My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Senator Canavan. How is the Liberal-National government delivering stable and certain water supply for farmers across the country, and how does this contrast to the approach taken by the Queensland Labor government?
I thank Senator McGrath for his question. I know he is a big fan of dams. We on this side all love dams. We love building dams. Dams are good for Australia. Dams are good for our country because they help us protect and plan for our futures. Dams are all about storing water today so that, in the future, we can grow more food, create more wealth, create more jobs and create more opportunity for all Australians. That's why we love dams.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I'm going to ask Senator Canavan to resume his seat. We're nearly there everyone—six minutes to go. Can we at least have it so that I can hear the minister's response? Even with his voice, I was struggling to hear then. Senator Canavan, you're free to continue.
I can well understand why this chamber is so excited about dams. Everybody loves dams. People are even more excited this week because, on the weekend, the government—the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—announced additional funding, additional investment, for more dams in Australia. They announced $567 million of more funding for dams in New South Wales. We can all see the terrible drought that's occurring in regional New South Wales right now and these investments give farmers hope for the future that we will have water. We will have investment. We will have an expanded agricultural sector that the Minister for Agriculture is working so hard to provide. We will be investing in upgrading the Wyangala Dam—a 10-metre rise on the Wyangala Dam. We will be investing in the Dungowan Dam near Tamworth as well.
It's such a shame that in New South Wales we have a government that are working with the federal government to build this infrastructure that people want in regional communities, while in Queensland we have a government with just as many opportunities—in fact, perhaps more opportunities to grow and develop their water resources—that are reducing the size of dams in Queensland. They're going to let over 100,000 megalitres go from the Paradise Dam and reduce that size of the dam, shrinking opportunities for farmers in the future. On the Rookwood Weir they're complaining that they can't afford it anymore and now they're cutting the size of the Rookwood Weir as well, which will cut off future opportunities for farmers in Central Queensland. We'll stand for dams, this government, because we believe in the future of farming in this nation.
Senator McGrath, a supplementary question?
Can the minister outline to the Senate how Queensland drought affected farmers have responded to Labor's plan to downsize Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton while these farmers suffer through extreme drought conditions?
I can respond to Senator McGrath's question because I've been talking to a lot of these affected farmers. I know that the Minister for Agriculture came to Rockhampton recently to talk to them as well. In fact, around 200 farmers, landowners, graziers and concerned citizens of Rockhampton turned out on the streets a couple of weeks ago to complain about the Labor Party's decision to downsize Rookwood Weir. Someone who was there in Queensland was a former head of AgForce Larry Acton. He said:
My property is next to the weir site…and I can tell you right now – not much has happened on the site for years. When Treasurer Jackie Trad announced that the public service were to be given a $1,250 bonus, it was the last straw.
A Duaringa cattle farmer Colin Dunne said:
One minute you look as though you've got access to water, the next minute it's all gone, especially myself because I'm on the tail end of it so if the weir gets lowered I don't get any. My time was wasted looking into it, money spent on it was wasted ... it's of no benefit to me anymore.
And that's because of all the shameful activities of the Queensland government that have reduced opportunities for Mr Dunne and others like him.
Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question?
The Liberal-National government put funding on the table for Rookwood Weir more than three years ago. What will the real Rookwood Weir, as proposed by the Liberal-National government and supported by the Liberal National opposition in Queensland, mean for farmers in Central Queensland?
We know at length what this will provide to the people of Central Queensland, because it's been talked about for so long. More than 10 years ago the former Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie said that he was going to build the Rookwood Weir by 2011, and we're still waiting in Central Queensland for it. We know from the studies that have been done on this that if we were to build the real Rookwood Weir it would deliver 2,100 jobs, it would double agricultural production in the Fitzroy Basin and it would massively expand the food opportunities for Rockhampton and Central Queensland. We're already the beef capital of Australia in Rockhampton. We'd like to be the food capital as well, but the Labor Party in Queensland are trying to deny that future to the people of Central Queensland, because they've run out of money and they don't prioritise our farmers in Queensland. In fact, today we learned that the Queensland government have enough money to spend $1.65 million on a virtual reality centre for the Cross River Rail project—something that doesn't even exist—while they won't build dams.
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. How many residential aged-care facilities do not have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day?
It is true that not all aged-care facilities have a nurse on site 24 hours a day, but that is actually not required by the quality and safety standards that aged-care facilities operate under. What the quality and safety standards require from aged-care facilities is that they provide the quality of care at the level of safety that's required by those standards and by the acuity of the patients and the residents who are in those facilities. There is no requirement under the Australian quality and safety standards for facilities to have nurses on site 24 hours a day, so the rationale for the question I suppose stands to be questioned in that context. Aged-care providers are required to provide the quality of care at the level of safety that represents the acuity of residents in the facilities. That's what the quality and safety standards say, and that's what the government requires them to do.
Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?
How many aged-care providers outsource all their obligations to another service provider?
There are a number of models of provision of care within the aged-care sector in Australia. There are some providers who provide a property based operation, and then they subcontract their care to another approved provider. One of the poorer examples of what we've seen in this space was the situation at Earle Haven, where, unfortunately, the approved provider was subcontracting to another provider that had no approval or accreditation at all, and we saw the very unfortunate outcome in that circumstance. There are a number of models of provision of care within the aged-care sector, and of course providers are required to meet the standards of care demonstrated and required under the aged-care quality and safety standards.
Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?
I'm glad the minister raised Earle Haven. Operation of the Earle Haven nursing home in Queensland was outsourced, and a subsequent dispute between the owner and the operator resulted in a 000 call to evacuate over 70 frail and elderly residents after most staff had fled. How many more senior Australians will suffer the same fate before the government finally acts on aged-care regulations?
The government introduced new quality and safety standards on 1 July this year, so Senator Chisholm's well out of date in respect of the question he asked. What happened at Earle Haven—and I don't disagree with anybody on that side of the chamber—was an absolute disgrace and should not have happened. When we receive the report from Kate Carnell later this month we'll have some opportunity to reflect on what happened at Earle Haven and take some action to deal with any issues that crop up. But in the context of Senator Chisholm's accusation that the staff fled, that is actually not true. One of the things that was good about what happened at Earle Haven was that the staff actually stayed to assist the residents, and I congratulate the staff on that. So, to make that claim against the staff is quite outrageous, because they are very good people. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallagher and Watt today relating to the economy.
This week we have seen this government deflect, deny and attack Labor instead of listening to the concerns of everyday Australians who are hurting from higher bills and economic uncertainty. What we have seen is Liberal-Nationals senators opposite behaving like an opposition, ranting and raving about Labor—they even managed to rant about Queensland Labor today—when they should be acting like a third-term government, getting on with a plan. But we know they have no plan. The RBA and the IMF have both called for Australia to invest in infrastructure to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. But, instead of listening to those concerns, the government wants to talk about Labor, and the economy continues to slide backwards.
I thought I might take this opportunity to talk about youth unemployment and the figures that were released today. It's fair to say that the performance of the minister for youth this week has been pretty hopeless. Again, today we've learnt that the youth unemployment rate has not changed. There's been no change to that figure, and that should alarm everyone in this place. But it is the performance of the minister for youth outside this chamber that matters the most. Young people are struggling to pay their bills, to get the training and skills that they need, and they are facing higher rates of unemployment under this government. After six years, there's no plan—nothing but attacks on Labor. Today we learnt that 28.2 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds are underemployed. Of people aged 20 to 24 years, the underemployment rate is 15.5 per cent. Those are shocking statistics, and those are the national statistics.
I want to raise the unemployment rates of regional Queensland because they're not getting much attention in this place from the other side. The other side are happy to ask questions about Queensland Labor. They're happy to point the finger. They probably wish they were back in Queensland—it's a fantastic place to be—but they're not in the parliament of Queensland asking questions of the Queensland Labor government. They are the government; they've been the government for six years, and it's time they start acting like it. In Townsville, the unemployment rate has gone from 5.8 per cent when Labor left office in 2013 to 8.3 per cent. Concerningly, under the Liberals, the median job search time hit an extraordinary 34 weeks in October last year—34 weeks to find a job in Townsville last year. That's 34 weeks on Newstart waiting to find a job. And the story isn't much better for youth unemployment. The youth unemployment rate in Townsville for 15- to 24-year-olds has gone from 8.9 per cent when Labor left office in 2013 to 17.1 per cent under the Liberals. The youth unemployment rate in Townsville has almost doubled. Instead of getting adequate responses about how the government is going to deal with this, we get deflection and denial and attacks and more questions about Labor than answers about what the government is going to do to fix this problem.
The issue is the same in Mackay. The median job search time has gone from eight weeks when Labor was in office to 23 weeks under the Liberals. It has almost tripled. When Labor left office there were 5,000 people in Mackay looking for work, and now there are 6,500 people looking for work. That's an extra 1,500 people in Mackay without a job. Youth unemployment in Mackay—the minister for youth might like to write this one down—for 15- to 24-year-olds has gone from 8.6 per cent to 15.5 per cent under the Liberals. Older people have also been let down. The unemployment rate for persons aged 45 and above in Mackay has gone from 2.6 per cent to 5.6 per cent under the Liberals. So, if you want to talk about Labor, why don't you talk about the unemployment rates when Labor was in office and what they are now under your government.
But these statistics relate to real people living in regional Queensland. My plea to this government is not to ignore them. Stop attacking Labor and start doing something to fix the problem. There are plenty of things that you can do to help young people in regional Queensland. Instead of doing anything of them—instead of talking about them in this place—you're here attacking Labor every single day. Well, the jig is up, and people are onto you.
It is my great pleasure to be able to stand here today and talk about these great figures that have come out today, representing the significant strength that's happening in the economy. There's no doubt that this country is facing some strong headwinds, but we are facing them very, very well as a country. In fact, over 14,500 jobs were created in the month of September, increasing to 311,000 the number of new jobs that have been created this year. This is off the back of a very strong and substantial plan that we're enacting as a responsible government—a government that was elected by the Australian people to implement this plan—and that is what we're doing.
We've seen employment grow at 2.5 per cent, and it remains well above the decade average. Total employment is at a record high, with almost 13 million people employed. We haven't seen this before. It is unprecedented, and it has happened under this Morrison government. We have seen full-time employment increase by 26,200 jobs over the month, with almost nine million Australians in full-time work. These are full-time jobs. These make up 61.5 per cent of the total employment growth over the past year.
The number of unemployed people fell by nearly 25,000 people over the month, with the underemployment rate falling by 0.2 per cent. This is outstanding. This is happening in people's lives. These aren't just figures; we're talking about individuals who have been able to get ahead. They've been able to find work under a strong economy—an economy that is bolstered by good policies and is growing. With the decrease in taxes, Australians are able to keep more of the money that they earn. The effective take-home pay that they are experiencing in their own lives and in their family's income have increased under this government.
We also heard Minister Cash, when she was answering her question, talk about the increase in the number of women in employment. In fact, it's at a record high. Over 6,110,000 women are in work today. This side of the chamber and, I would hope, the entire chamber should be very, very proud of this is happening in our great country.
Senator Green spoke about youth unemployment. I find it interesting that those opposite would speak about this because there is an important program that is in existence in this country right now—it's called Youth Jobs PaTH—which that side of the chamber do not support. In the less than two minutes that I've got left, I just want to unpack this issue. If you are a young person who is unemployed and looking for work, you knock on the door of all sorts of employers asking them to give you a job. But the reality is that most employers will say to you, 'We need people who have experience.' You need to be able to get a foot in the door, but it's very difficult to get a foot in the door when employers are saying that they need people with experience. Youth Jobs PaTH provides people with the opportunity, through an internship program, to be able to get in with an employer. Yet those opposite voted against this program when it was first introduced, and they announced in the election that they would cut this program. Why would they do that? It is because they're beholden to the unions. Labor are beholden to the unions, and they can't see the opportunity that can be created. I would encourage all senators here in this chamber to promote this program. We've seen over 8,000 people go from welfare and into work through this program. It's an opportunity for young people to be able to get ahead and to get off welfare and into work.
We heard about the increase to Newstart, and there's an argument that those are making for that. Well, under this program, participants get an extra $200 a fortnight added to their Newstart payment to assist them with the cost of getting the bus tickets, filling up their cars or buying the uniforms that they'd need to be able to get and keep that job. This is what this government is doing. But those opposite won't accept this, because they're beholden to the unions and they can't see the opportunities. (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of the answers from earlier today. We have heard that the warnings have been worsening for a long time now and conditions in our economy are going backwards. There are many voices, not by any means from the fringes of debate; rather, voices have come from right across our community. They have come from the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, from many business executives from a lot of successful businesses here in Australia, from state and territory governments and from all manners of various industry groups, but, most importantly, they have come from ordinary Australians—working families who are now finding it tougher and harder to make ends meet than ever before.
Earlier this week we heard the news from the International Monetary Fund that they were sharply downgrading the forecasts for our economy. In the IMF's view Australia's economy is tipped to grow by just 1.7 per cent this year, down from the previous estimate of 2.8 per cent. To put that into perspective, Australia's economy is predicted to grow at a rate smaller than that of Greece—a clear sign that the tax cuts the government had insisted would provide a boost to the economy have actually not worked. Meanwhile, here in Canberra, we have a government that is asleep at the wheel. They would rather talk about the opposition than make the important decisions that are needed to get our economy moving again. Let me give advice to those opposite: attacking Labor won't fix our economy, nor will it improve the wages and living standards of hardworking Australians. You need greater fiscal stimulus to tackle the collapsing confidence and weak economic growth.
We know from the release of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, HILDA, just a few months ago that, under the Liberals, ordinary Australians have gone backwards. After six long years of economic mismanagement, real median household income is lower now than it was back in 2013. Falling household incomes now mean that the percentage of our population living in relative poverty has increased to 10.4 per cent. In fact in the last year of the survey it was shown that household income reduced by around $500. That difference may not seem a lot for many of us in this place, but, for a lot of Australians outside the Canberra bubble, $500 is a lot and is a big hit to family budgets. It can mean the difference between sending the kids to school camp for the year and having them stay home. It's the difference between being able to afford to have the heaters on over winter and staying cold. These are just a few examples of the real life impacts for working families when our economy is floundering in the way it is at the moment.
To top it all off, in the time that this government have presided over one of the most significant slowdowns in decades, they've also presided over cuts to penalty rates and devastatingly low rates for Newstart and other social security payments. Australians have a right to know what this government is doing to help them make ends meet. They have a right to know what the government is doing to lift their wages and address the weakness in our economy. Unfortunately, despite all of these conditions, all of this struggle, all we get from this government is a few not-so-snappy attack lines against Labor and, 'Let's wait and see.' Australians, who are doing it tougher now than they ever were before, deserve more from this government; they deserve a government that is prepared to recognise the troubles ahead and to take action to safeguard their welfare, as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Labor did when the global financial crisis hit back in 2008. I'm sorry to say that this government is not doing that at all. They would rather attack Labor than ensure that our nation's prosperity is secured for the future.
I'm delighted to have the opportunity to take note of the answers given earlier today in question time. Can I address some of the issues raised by Senator Ciccone. He's an extremely decent representative from the state of Victoria, and I do admire his decency and integrity; however, that doesn't excuse him for the subject matter of his last contribution to the debate. The one thing I have learnt while serving in this chamber is that when the Labor Party refers to a document you need to go to the source document and see what the author of the document actually said. This is what IMF economic counsellor Gita Gopinath said in relation to the IMF's report:
… growth continues to be weakened by rising trade barriers and growing geopolitical tensions—
not by Australian government policy but by rising trade barriers and increasing geopolitical tensions. The counsellor goes on:
We estimate that the US-China trade tensions will cumulatively reduce the level of global GDP—
not just Australian GDP, but global GDP—
by 0.8 percent by 2020.
This is a global issue, not an Australian-specific issue, but you would not know it.
That's why you're a senator; because you're a details man!
I am a details man, Senator Smith, my good friend from Western Australia. This is a global issue, but you would not know it from the Labor Party's contribution to this debate.
My colleague Senator Ciccone refers to Greece as a benchmark for Australia—Greece! I must say, you started to lose all credibility when you referred to Greece as a benchmark. The IMF report—the same IMF report that they've selectively quoted from, taken out of context—confirms that the unemployment rate in Greece is 19.3 per cent. That's the benchmark the opposition's referring to. That's nearly four times as high as the current unemployment rate in Australia. Since the GFC, the Greek economy is 23 per cent smaller and the Australian economy is 33 per cent larger. The IMF forecasts long-run growth in Australia to be three times as high as that of Greece. But that's the benchmark that's referred to by my friend on the opposition benches. Gross government debt in Greece is 184 per cent of GDP. That's the reference point we get from my good friend Senator Ciccone.
But let's move on to Senator Green, another decent senator sitting on the other side of this chamber. Senator Green raises the question of why it is that people on this side of the chamber, especially we Queensland senators, refer to the Queensland Labor government. The problem is that they're standing in the way of job creation. The people of Queensland are absolutely fed up and tired of the do-nothing Palaszczuk-Trad government. Minister Canavan referred to the Rookwood Weir: 2,100 jobs in Central Queensland that could be unleashed in the economy in Queensland if the Queensland government simply took advantage of the opportunity presented to them, but they refuse to do so, because they're a do-nothing government. And New Hope's Acland stage 3: for 10 years they've been seeking the approvals, and now they're having to lay off 150 workers. That's not creating new jobs; those were existing jobs—people having to be laid off because of the do-nothing Labor government.
The reality of this matter is that the coalition government has a plan. Quiet Australians endorsed that plan by providing a majority to the coalition government. And can I tell you that nowhere was the expression of that support louder than in regional Queensland, where they weren't just quiet Australians; they gave an almighty roar.
Attacking Labor won't create a single job or help wages growth. The reality is that people are suffering desperately. The lack of wages growth is having a major impact on people's lives, yet this government refuses to act to stimulate the economy. The RBA, the IMF, state and territory governments, and businesses are calling for the Morrison government to stimulate the economy. We have seen the IMF, the OECD, the Reserve Bank and Deloitte Access Economics all downgrade Australia's expected growth. The IMF indicated that we're going to see an increase in the unemployment rate. And who do you think will feel this the most? It's the vulnerable, it's the unemployed, it's our young people in remote and regional Australia, and First Nations people in remote communities with no jobs.
A submission to the Community Affairs References Committee into the adequacy of Newstart and related payments from Dr Frances Markham and Professor John Altman at the ANU said:
The simplest way to reduce poverty in remote Indigenous Australia is to raise the rate of Newstart. It is not hyperbolic, but merely a restatement of the epidemiological evidence to point out that the current rate of Newstart is killing Indigenous Australians. Life expectancy gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians cannot be expected to close while the rate of Newstart remains so low.
Yet what does this government do? They attack Labor rather than make any moves to boost the economy. This government refuse to raise the rate of Newstart, and those on Newstart and youth allowance experience poverty at the highest rates. The inadequacy of Newstart is an economic issue as well as a welfare and wellbeing issue. Newstart recipients are six times more likely to face poor health outcomes, they're more likely to suffer from multiple conditions, they're more likely to suffer from mental health, and they're more likely to be hospitalised. Poor health is a barrier to work and we all know this. People are struggling to afford the basics and the essentials, and they're struggling to meet their medical and healthcare costs.
And what about CDP? CDP, not CDC—but we'll get to that at some point. CDP, the Community Development Program. The Work for the Dole program in Australia pays $11 an hour. The national minimum wage is $18.93 per hour. How can people be expected to look after their families? How can they afford groceries and power bills or put fuel in their vehicles? In September 2017 there were 32,600 CDP participants, 82.5 per cent of whom identified as Indigenous. We were told during the last term of government that this government—the Morrison government—would find 6,000 jobs for those 33,000 people. There were big promises on jobs. Well, where are those jobs? Six thousand subsidised jobs were supposed to commence in February this year. It's October. That very quietly was downgraded to 1,000 jobs, and now—wait for it—the Morrison government has very quietly put out a package of just 100 subsidised jobs on CDP. One hundred jobs—not 6,000, not even 1,000. They've just quietly said, 'We'll give 100 jobs.'
Five thousand, nine hundred to go!
Precisely! That's 100 down from 6,000. That is quite a reduction in the employment opportunities that were meant to come, and where are the jobs? This government has no plan for our country. It has no plan to deal with low wages and rising prices, and the cost of essentials is skyrocketing. Electricity prices are increasing and child care has become unaffordable under the Liberals. Australians are worried about the economy, but Scott Morrison and the Liberals are pretending there is no problem.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to recreational shooting.
I rise to take note of the response from Minister Cash to my question on the report Economic and social impacts of recreational hunting and shooting. This report is just another example of vested interests getting their way in this parliament. We have a chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Shooting, Minister McKenzie, seemingly using the health budget to fund her pet project. How is this okay? This is absolutely disgraceful. I note that the senator is launching the Parliamentary Friends of Shooting with SIFA next week, and we all know about SIFA from the Four Corners expose. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for today proposing the disallowance of the Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class — Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019 to the next day of sitting.
Leave granted.
I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in my name for today proposing a committee inquiry to the next day of sitting.
Leave granted.
I move business of the Senate notice of motion No.1 standing in my name for today:
That the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, made under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, be disallowed.
I rise to speak on my disallowance motion on the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019. This instrument is directed at Angel Flight. Angel Flight is a charity which coordinates emergency flights to assist people in regional areas who need to access specialist medical or mental health treatment that would otherwise be unavailable to them because of vast distances or high travel costs. If someone in, say, Kimba in South Australia needs repeated chemotherapy treatment over a period of time, they would normally need to travel by road to Adelaide, a six-hour drive and back. That's quite a burden on people who are sick. The alternative might be to drive to Whyalla for a regular public transport flight to and from Adelaide, at great expense.
We all know in this chamber that there are huge costs associated with regional travel. It's simply not affordable for people who require medical attention. I'm not talking about emergency medical attention but simply appointments that they can't have in their local towns. They have to spend a lot of money on flights and so forth. Angel Flight is set up whereby pilots—who are certified as safe by CASA—volunteer their time and their aircraft. They get some contribution to fuel such that it eases the burden on the pilot. They carry these people, and they've had over 45,000 flights helping Australians.
In 2011, an Angel Flight flight crashed 31 kilometres north of Horsham Airport in Victoria. The pilot had flown into reduced visibility conditions due to low cloud, rain and diminishing light, leading to disorientation, loss of control and impact with terrain. Tragically, the pilot and one passenger died on impact. The second passenger died later in hospital. I might emphasise—and it's relevant to what I'll say later—that the accident was not related to maintenance.
In 2017, an Angel Flight flight crashed just after leaving Mount Gambier airport. The pilot took off in low cloud, lost visual cues and probably became spatially disoriented, resulting in the loss of control of the aircraft and collision with terrain. Sadly, again, all on board lost their lives, including 16-year-old Emily Redding. It is a truly sad thing. There's no question it was a tragedy, but, again, I emphasise that no maintenance related issues were identified in the accident.
On 14 February this year, before the ATSB report was finalised into the Mount Gambier accident, CASA introduced the community service flight instrument that we are discussing today. The instrument set a standard for Angel Flight, but it was a standard that Angel Flight already met. Minimum flight hours and a minimum time in command were set in the instrument, but they were already requirements of Angel Flight, so, in that respect, the instrument wasn't offensive. The offending parts of the instrument centred around three things: (1) the exclusion of helicopters being used for community service flights, (2) a restriction on those who can fly on board Angel Flights, which make it unlawful for there to be an Angel Flight mentor on board the aircraft, and (3) an increase in maintenance requirements for aircraft involved in flights. I'll deal with each of these issues, one by one.
In relation to helicopters, Ms Rebekha Sharkie and I met with CASA, after we lodged the disallowance in the last parliament, and questioned why helicopters could not be used to conduct Angel Flights. CASA could not explain the decision, and on 8 April they introduced an amendment to the instrument repermitting the use of helicopters. Interestingly, in respect of mentoring, at the Senate inquiry that looked at the ATSB report into the Mount Gambier crash, CASA appeared and conceded they did not really intend to prevent mentoring on board the aircraft and that they would look to clarify the situation. Of course, pilots are always very conservative. They will look to the rules and they'll try and stick to them to the letter. Finally, on maintenance, with the benefit of the ATSB report into the Mount Gambier crash, we now know that neither Angel Flight aircraft that crashed had any concerns in respect of maintenance. Maintenance played no part in relation to those crashes. Yet, the instrument increases the maintenance regularity for aircraft participating in Angel Flights.
I need to stop here and advise the chamber of the Angel Flight philosophy. Once again, Angel Flight pilots are CASA-certified pilots. They are safe. The aircraft they fly in are CASA-certified. They are safe. These are people who volunteer their time to help others in the community. I actually have a pilot's licence. I could jump into—well, I probably can't; I haven't flown for a while, so it would be unwise to fly with me—but theoretically I could jump into an aircraft with my colleague Senator Griff, and we could fly to Kangaroo Island, do something on the weekend, enjoy some fishing, and I could fly back. Yet, for some reason, a certified pilot can't do the same thing with someone who simply needs a medical appointment in the city. So, we have a problem here. You can have a highly qualified pilot fly someone in a plane to a sporting event on the weekend, and that's okay, but the same pilot in the same aircraft may not be able to fly a person to a medical centre for an appointment.
Additional requirements are going to be placed on Angel Flight aircraft, and they won't be a small imposition. It's not like you take your aircraft and roll it down the road to the nearest garage and get it serviced. You have to find a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer—and they're getting rarer and rarer by the minute—and you might have to fly some considerable distance, after you've booked in, to get your aircraft inspected. It's a significant event in the context of an aircraft pilot and/or an aircraft owner. It is not an insignificant burden. It takes time and money to do that. CASA has now introduced an instrument that, from a maintenance perspective, does nothing in respect of safety in relation to Angel Flight except add cost to it. Yet again we are seeing CASA trying to kill off the general aviation sector.
The irony of all this is that, just a while back, the chamber passed the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019, which is a government bill that seeks to rein in CASA's overregulation. It is listed to pass through the House of Representatives today. The operative part of that bill says this:
… in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
The government has signalled—and the Senate has signalled, and there is no doubt in the other place—that they will command by legislation, probably by the end of today, that CASA recalibrate its approach to safety. Safety is, of course, important, but there will never be zero risk associated with flying. Yet we have a situation here where CASA is introducing a maintenance requirement that will cost money and is not necessary, yet Michael McCormack is adamant it should go through. He introduced the bill here to address this very problem, and yet he's exacerbating it by allowing this instrument to go through.
The chamber must realise that we are dealing with an organisation, CASA, that would prefer to see no aircraft flying ever, because that's the way they'll get a zero safety case on their ledger. No flights equals no accidents. If CASA were in charge of road transport, none of you would be allowed to drive on the roads. It's as simple as that. An accident would occur and CASA would ban you. They'd regulate people out of business. The further irony that we've got here is that, by doing this, there will be fewer Angel Flight pilots inclined to fly and fewer aircrafts available to do that, which will put these people who require medical attention back onto the roads, where it's more likely that there will be an accident. Just giving the statistics for South Australia, in 2018 there were 80 fatalities on South Australian roads, and 56 of those were on rural roads. Indeed, there were 34 fatal crashes in the Limestone Coast region between 2012 and 2016, which is near Mount Gambier, where this last Angel Flight crash occurred.
Since this instrument has been introduced, we've had an ATSB report come out. Sadly, that ATSB report directed its effort not just at the crash—and I concede what they did in respect of the crash was professional, and they did make useful findings as to what had happened. By the way, they did not make any recommendations in respect of that crash, but they turned their attention to Angel Flight, this organisation that seeks to assist people in regional areas. Using statistics—and we all know about statistics; 'lies, damned lies and statistics' is the saying—they came to the conclusion that it was seven times more likely that you'd have an accident on an Angel Flight than on a private flight. They did that by excluding prepositioning legs, the leg from where the pilot lives to where the patient needs to be picked up and, after they have done the service of taking them to a medical appointment, getting back from where the patient is to where the pilot lives. That data was excluded.
They found that there was pressure on Angel Flight pilots. You know what? They did that without talking to one single Angel Flight pilot. Not one single Angel Flight pilot was talked to. Do you think they asked the question, 'How many times has an Angel Flight cancelled due to weather?' That would give an indication of how the organisation was faring in terms of making sure people weren't taking off in bad conditions. Do you think they asked? Do you think they found out about how many times one of those flights had been cancelled? No, they didn't. In that respect, the report was incompetent.
The Senate committee, the government-dominated committee, chaired by Senator McDonald, who did a really good job throughout the process—very fair, very measured, extracted evidence—made some findings and some recommendations, and those recommendations included two things. The first recommendation was to deal with the issue of mentoring. Once again, I concede that CASA was happy to take that on board, and it indicated to the committee that it would consider that. Nonetheless, that's one of the recommendations from the committee. The second recommendation from the committee was that the additional maintenance requirements that have been placed on Angel Flight without any justification should be removed. Once again, Senator McDonald did a really good job chairing that committee. I'm very interested to see how she votes on this disallowance. And we also had Senator Brockman—I guess I can even up the score—who was very surgical in his questioning around the statistics associated with Angel Flight. He actually took on the doctor inside the ATSB responsible for those statistics and pulled out some glaring errors. For that, I thank Senator Brockman. I'm interested to see how he votes on this disallowance. Senator Sterle stood strongly on this as well. I note that the report that was handed down by the Senate RRAT committee was unanimous. There were no dissenting reports; there were no additional comments. I congratulate the committee chair, Senator McDonald, for getting a bipartisan report. That's often a difficult thing to do in this place.
The general aviation community knows that what is being done here is wrong. We have a Senate committee that has recommended changes. I've asked for those changes to be made by CASA. I sat down with CASA and said, 'I will withdraw my disallowance if you simply accept the recommendations of the Senate committee.' These are recommendations that are grounded in the evidence that we took from the ATSB, from Angel Flight and from CASA. But, no, it's the modus operandi of CASA to shut down general aviation.
Shame on all the Nationals in this place if they vote against this—shame on anyone who cares about regional communities and the people that live in these regional communities—and make it that little bit harder for the people who live in those communities. They're already suffering from the fact we're removing, on a regular basis, services from those communities. A lot of them are doing it tough in relation to farming, and now we're going to make it just that more difficult by removing some of the very good people that volunteer their time to help and volunteer their aircraft just so that CASA can continue in its attempt to destroy general aviation.
I don't know whether the House has passed the bill yet. It's listed for today. The parliament is commanding CASA re-adopt or recalibrate the way it thinks about aviation safety regulation, yet they stand in opposition to this parliament, passing regulations that are harmful, that are costly, that are unnecessary. I urge the Senate today to disallow the instrument that has been put forward.
The opposition today does not support Senator Patrick's disallowance motion. We note that the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport has inquired into matters associated with community service flights. We note that the committee made a couple of recommendations, which, as we understand it, the government are currently considering. So we in the opposition are looking forward to seeing the government respond to those in due course.
We understand that community flight charities such as Angel Flight do indeed provide a valuable service to regional communities across Australia, and we pay credit to the organisation and the volunteers that give their time to help regional families who need to attend medical appointments in major centres. We also very much respect the role of CASA as the independent civil aviation safety regulator. There's no doubt in our nation that our community has the expectation that CASA will establish and enforce a regulatory system that keeps all passengers, whether fare-paying or not, safe when they take to our skies. Indeed, Senator Patrick highlighted to us his own experience as a qualified pilot and said in his own words that he wouldn't suggest people take a flight with him as a pilot.
The opposition take a bipartisan approach to aviation safety because we know that the community puts a very high premium on safety in our skies. We understand very much, however, the concerns raised by Angel Flight. It is also essential that we have the highest safety standards applied to these important flights. We will continue to monitor implementation of this instrument and any impacts on community service flights and the community service flight community. We will be working with the government to address any of these concerns going forward.
The government does not support Senator Patrick's disallowance motion. As has been acknowledged, these issues were canvassed in the recent Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report, which looked at, among other matters, maintenance requirements relating to Angel Flight.
The government acknowledges the great benefit provided by community flight charities such as Angel Flight in regional Australia. We appreciate the generous donation of time and expertise provided by volunteer pilots in support of this valuable work and the contributions that many make towards such organisations. We note that one of the two recommendations in the Senate committee's report includes a proposal to remove the provisions for additional aeroplane maintenance requirements which are beyond those required for airworthiness in general aviation. In this regard, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's view remains that the inclusion of the modest additional maintenance requirements for these flights is an appropriate and proportionate measure to address the identified risk of a high-use private aircraft undertaking passenger flights, and that these additional requirements are likely to affect less than 10 per cent of private aircraft engaged in these flights. The government supports CASA, our independent civil aviation safety regulator, to use its expertise and professional judgement to determine appropriate safety measures for flights carrying passengers.
Passengers, whether they are fare-paying or not, are generally less able to determine the level of risk in the service they are boarding and rely on the regulator to ensure aviation safety is maintained. While acknowledging that CASA's instrument places additional requirements on pilots—largely around the recency of experience and overall experience—these measures are a practical approach to mitigating any flight risk. Since commencing on 19 March 2019, we are not aware that the instrument has resulted in a lack of availability of pilots or their aircraft for community service flights. Therefore, given our regulator's advice, the government does not support the disallowance motion before the Senate.
What I hear with people standing up are nice, kind words—everyone feels good—but it's not leadership. If CASA comes to this place and proposes a regulation, what I would see is absolute fear in exercising a judgement as to whether or not that creates an imposition on general aviation that is not worthy—that doesn't increase safety.
There's no question, no question at all, that if this instrument stands as it is at the moment there will be additional costs. There is no question about that. But no-one in this place will stand up and say that there will be an accident because of it, because no-one can make a link between the additional maintenance requirements that have been imposed by CASA and the safety of Angel Flight flights. It just doesn't exist. In fact, Senator Birmingham has suggested that there has been no impact.
I have been informed that, just on account of the fact that the ATSB now says that Angel Flight flights are seven times more likely to have an accident than a private pilot, than a private operation, that has caused Angel Flight's insurance companies to contact them indicating a significant increase in premium. That will have an effect on that operation. So to stand and say there has been no impact—there has been no impact as a result of the instrument; there has been no impact as a result of the ATSB report—is simply wrong. It's ill-informed. Again, I urge—
You might want to check carefully what I said there—
Order!
Well, Senator Birmingham, perhaps that is true. What I'm suggesting to you is that there is an impact on the operation. There is an impact on the operation. Perhaps you don't care too much about your insurance because the Commonwealth covers yours, but that's not the case for Angel Flight. Once again, we have people in this place who receive regular wages and have everything covered for them, allowing for regulations and allowing for things to occur that simply increase costs for no apparent reason, and that is unacceptable. I urge the Senate to support my disallowance.
The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.
I present the Procedure Committee's second report of 2019, and I move:
That the Senate adopt the recommendations within the report.
Question agreed to.
I present the fourth and fifth reports of 2019 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
I present additional information received by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee relating to estimates.
On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019.
On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
I present Scrutiny Digest No. 7 of 2019 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's Scrutiny Digest No. 7 of 2019. Since 1981, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has scrutinised all bills against a set of accountability standards which focuses on the effect of proposed legislation on individual rights, liberties and obligations and on parliamentary scrutiny. The committee's reports to the Senate play a vital role in the scrutiny of legislation by the Senate. Importantly, the committee's work also has 'unseen influence' on the development of bills prior to their introduction into the parliament. The committee's consistent application of its scrutiny principles to all bills introduced into the parliament ensures that legislative drafters and officials are aware of the expectations of the committee at the bill drafting stage.
I also take this opportunity to note that the committee is actively considering recommendation 9 of the recent inquiry into the parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. The report recommended that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee consider whether the standing orders be amended to prevent the passage of a bill if the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has not yet tabled a report in relation to that bill. With those comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest No. 7 of 2019 to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 7 of 2019, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 7 of 2019. As senators will be aware, the committee has resolved to draw the Senate's attention to its most significant scrutiny concerns and to comment substantively on these concerns in chapter 1 of its Delegated Legislation Monitor. In the current monitor, the committee seeks to draw the Senate's attention to the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019. The instrument sets out criteria that must be satisfied before an approved aged-care provider may use physical or chemical restraints in relation to a person in their care and imposes limits on how such restraints may be used.
Under scrutiny committee Principle D, the committee must scrutinise each legislative instrument to ensure that it does not contain matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. In the committee's view, the regulation of physical and chemical restraints has the capacity to significantly affect the personal rights and liberties of people in aged care. The committee has therefore twice sought the minister's advice about the necessity and appropriateness of including these matters in delegated legislation rather than primary legislation. A copy of the minister's correspondence is available on the committee's website.
In summary, the minister has advised that the need to act in a swift and agile manner to protect vulnerable older Australians is best achieved by setting out these matters in delegated legislation. While the use of delegated legislation may enable the government to act promptly to protect vulnerable people, the committee is concerned that this approach may also allow such protections to be watered down or removed without full parliamentary oversight and associated consultation processes. Consequently, the committee considers that these principles, or at least the core principles governing the use of restraints, should be set out in primary legislation rather than delegated legislation.
The committee initially placed a protective notice of motion to disallow the instrument on 16 September to provide it with adequate time to consider the minister's advice. The committee has since resolved to keep this notice in place to highlight its significant scrutiny concerns and to give the Senate additional time to consider this matter. More broadly, I take this opportunity to reiterate the committee's general view that matters with a potentially significant impact on personal rights and liberties, whether positive or negative, should be included in primary legislation, rather than delegated legislation. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 7 of 2019 to the Senate.
I present the government's response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on its review of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows:
Australian Government Report: Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018
SEPTEMBER 2019
On 6 December 2018, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 (the Assistance and Access Act) was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 3 April 2019. The Committee made three recommendations.
PJCIS Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that section 187N of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to require the Committee's review of the amendments made by the Assistance and Access Act by June 2020.
Government Response
The Government supports this recommendation in principle. However it has been superseded by the request from the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Mr Andrew Hastie MP, to the Prime Minister on 9 August 2019 that legislation be introduced to defer the Committee's reporting date to 30 September 2020.
The passage of legislation to provide this extension would permit the Committee to extend the reporting date of Independent National Security Legislation Monitor until June 2020 (from March 2020) as requested by the Monitor.
This extension is needed to provide the Committee with sufficient time to consider the findings of the Independent National Security Legislation
Monitor's review, carry out a detailed review of the legislation, and undertake appropriate consultations with industry and the public.
PJCIS Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that sufficient resources be made available to the INSLM to enable the review of the amendments made by the Assistance and Access Act, as referred by the Committee, and report by 1 March 2020.
Government Response
The Government supports this recommendation in principle, noting that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has asked the Committee for an extension of the Monitor's reporting date, to June 2020, as discussed in response to recommendation 1.
The Attorney-General's portfolio and the Department of Home Affairs are working with the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to ensure sufficient resources are made available for this review.
MIS Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Government continues to ensure that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have sufficient resources to ensure that they can properly execute their additional responsibilities under the Assistance and Access Act.
Government Response
The Government supports this recommendation. The Government will monitor the resource impacts on the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman and consider additional resourcing where necessary.
On behalf of the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel, Mr Chester, I table the third annual statement on veterans and their families, and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows:
I ask leave of the House to give the third annual Ministerial Statement on Veterans and their Families.
I begin by acknowledging all those in this place who have served in the Australian Defence Force and those listening by broadcast by saying simply, thank you for your service.
Following the Federal election, I was honoured to be reappointed to the Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel portfolios — a responsibility I take very seriously.
I have met with thousands of serving personnel, veterans, and their families. I have listened to their stories — what's working and what needs to improve.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs has recognised that some veterans and their families do not have the best experience when they leave the Australian Defence Force.
However, I do want to correct some of the ongoing myths surrounding service in the ADF. Not everyone who leaves the ADF is broken, busted and bad.
For the vast majority of people, serving in the ADF is overwhelmingly a positive experience. It's good for the individual, it's good for our community and it's in our national interest.
They leave the ADF and transition into civilian life successfully, having had a career that has set them up with the skills, training and attitude to succeed.
This is clearly shown through the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program, which has showcased the drive, entrepreneurship and leadership of our veterans.
Take Chris Mayfield OAM as an example. He is a third generation professional soldier, who transitioned in 2014 after 26 years of distinguished service.
Last year Chris won the Outstanding Contribution by an Individual to Veterans' Employment, at the Prime Minister Veterans Employment Awards.
He transferred his skillset to help Fortescue Metals Group set-up a veteran's employment initiative to help other veterans transfer their skills to the sector.
To date, Chris has influenced FMG to engage 92 veterans and the feedback on the skills, attitudes and contributions of the veterans has been outstanding.
Chris has not only found himself a new career, but he has also helped others to do so — good for the individual, good for the community and in the national interest.
We are also very privileged to have more than 20 Members and Senators in this place who are veterans and collectively, we are all here for the same purpose — to put veterans and their families first.
And this Government has achieved a lot, introducing and building a range of programs and services to support the health and wellbeing of veterans and their families.
Transition
Just as enlistment and basic training is an important part of the ADF, transition back into civilian life is equally important.
Every year, more than 5,500 people leave the military so improving the transition experience is vital.
The Defence post-transition survey indicates that 26 per cent of ADF members are looking for work prior to transition.
At three months post-transition this is down to 12 per cent, and by 12 months down to 8 per cent.
While the majority of personnel leaving the ADF are well prepared, it can be difficult for some and that is why from January this year, Defence has adopted a needs-based approach to individualised transition.
Regardless of time served, members can now access coaching, including career planning, full service documentation, skills recognition, resume preparation, job search programs, and financial literacy education.
Former ADF members are able to access this support, including employment support, for up to 12-months after transition.
All serving ADF members now have access to the two-day Job Search Preparation program at any time in their career.
For those personnel leaving for medical reasons with complex circumstances, Defence has introduced tailored assistance to gain civilian employment through the Transition for Employment program.
This tailored approach also includes early engagements and case management with DVA to ensure they are provided with the best support possible.
It is also important for all of us to know that the traditional view of a veteran has changed.
While some choose to stay in service for the majority of their life, the average career in the ADF is now around eight years, meaning some may be leaving at age 25 or under.
This can be an incredible shock to some and is why in January we launched the Personalised Career and Employment Program.
This program is targeted at those categorised 'at-risk' in the 18–24 year old cohort, who have served for less than four years and are transitioning for administrative or medical reasons.
Finding a job in civilian life is a critical step to a successful transition and one we are investing in.
I regularly see the professionalism, dedication, leadership, teamwork and the ability of our ADF personnel to work in high-pressure environments.
What employer wouldn't want those skills in their workplace?
We all need to get the message out that employing a veteran is good for business.
Through the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program we have introduced the Veterans' Employment Toolkit.
This provides information to veterans on how to translate skills based on their defence rank, prepare a resume and job application, prepare for interviews and adjust to the civilian workplace.
As part of the Program, the Prime Minister and I announced the Veterans' Employment Commitment last November, inviting businesses to make a public commitment to the employment of veterans.
As of today, more than 150 organisations have signed this Commitment.
And almost 2000 vacancies have been advertised on the Government's JobActive website, flagging defence force experience as desired.
Recognising the important role played by ex-service organisations, the most recent Budget provided $16.2 million to support SoldierOn, Team Rubicon and the Returned and Services League Australia to deliver programs to assist veterans find meaningful employment.
The Government is also building on the Veterans' Employment Program by implementing a Support for Employment Program, which will support veterans who have not secured employment 12 months after separating from the ADF.
Mental health and wellbeing
The mental health and wellbeing of all Australians is a priority for this Government, and we have committed to meeting the mental health and wellbeing needs of those who have defended our nation, and their families.
Mental health is a complex issue, but one that is everyone's business — families, friends, employers, community organisations, governments and the ex-service community.
In this year's Budget, the Government provided more than $11.5 billion to support more than 280,000 veterans and their families across Australia.
This includes more than $230 million in funding to support the mental health needs of veterans and their families. This funding is uncapped — if there is a need, it will be met.
All veterans are eligible to access mental health care for life for any mental health condition and we have expanded the veteran specific lifeline Open Arms — Veterans & Families Counselling, which provides professional mental health and wellbeing support to veterans and their families.
These supports save lives, are needs-based, uncapped and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to any veteran who has served a single day in the ADF.
Separate to treatment of any mental health condition, we have made immediate income support available for those veterans with compensation claims for mental health conditions which are caused by their service. This is known as the Veteran Payment and includes access to whole-of- person rehabilitation for those with extra needs.
Building on current research commissioned by Government into the benefits of assistance dogs for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), we are now providing psychiatric assistance dogs to eligible veterans.
This is an area where a number of veterans have told me first-hand the benefits of an assistance dogs — this is real action that responds to the needs of veterans.
We have established an initial panel of providers of psychiatric assistance dogs, which will be further extended through an open approach to market where other organisations will be able to apply to part of the panel.
A lot has been achieved in treating mental health and supporting veterans as they transition, however, some veterans have and do slip through the cracks and are victims of the scourge that is suicide.
When it comes to veteran suicide, the only acceptable number is zero.
Mental health and suicide prevention are very complex issues, and one of my priorities when I was re-appointed was to convene a Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Summit, bringing together experts from around Australia to plan the best way forward.
The Summit identified four priority areas — health care, transition, partnerships and engagement, communication and education.
The Summit was the first step in a broad consultation process we have been undertaking to help reshape the Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy and develop a National Action Plan to improve veterans' mental health and wellbeing, and to prevent suicide.
We are consulting closely with veterans and their families, and across government, peak bodies, ex-service organisations, researchers and service providers.
Our discussions are taking place in parallel with the National Mental Health Commission's consultation on mental health, and the 10-year 'Towards Zero' National Action Plan being led by the Minister for Health.
I intend to release the Strategy and Action Plan by the end of this year.
DVA is also piloting two important suicide prevention initiatives to support vulnerable veterans.
The Veteran Suicide Prevention Pilot provides assertive outreach, follow-up care and practical support to veterans following their discharge from hospital for a suicide attempt, ideation or risk of suicide.
Support Coordinators work with individual veterans to develop a personalised safety plan, which links them to support provided by DVA and ex-service organisations.
Under our second Pilot — the Coordinated Veterans' Care Mental Health Pilot — veterans receive coordinated care from their GP to help manage mild to moderate mental health concerns and pain, complemented by a self-help coaching app.
This early intervention aims to promote better mental health outcomes for veterans, especially those who live where mental health services may be difficult to access.
The community plays an important role in supporting veterans and their families and this training will help ensure there are caring and trained people available to provide that initial support when and where it is needed by veterans.
At the election we committed to investing $30 million in a network of Veteran Wellbeing Centres in partnership with ex-service organisations and state and territory governments.
The centres will be located in six locations across the country — Nowra, Wodonga, Darwin, Townsville, Adelaide and Perth — providing local solutions to local communities.
The Centres will act as a one-stop-shop for government and non-government services, including connections with local health services, community organisations, advocacy and wellbeing support.
The Wellbeing Centres are part of the Government's commitment to changing the focus of the veteran support system from an illness model to a wellbeing model, empowering veterans during transition and into their new life beyond service.
In the last Budget, the Government provided an additional $4 million for a partnership between Open Arms and the Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) to deliver a national program of mental health training to up to 7,000 people across Australia.
Open Arms is also partnering with Defence and Phoenix Australia in three innovative clinical research programs.
The Government has extended the Provisional Access to Medical Treatment trial allowing veterans to continue to have access to treatment for specified conditions before their claim is approved.
This trial allows veterans to get the treatment they need faster and reduces the risk of further deterioration of their condition.
Australians can be assured that this Government is working with veterans and their families every day to improve services and support.
I encourage anyone in the veteran community who is struggling with their mental health to engage with DVA and Open Arms on 1800 011 046. That's 1800 011 046.
Women and families
The contribution of women who serve in the ADF, but also the contribution and sacrifice of women whose partners serve is immeasurable.
And families are the primary support network for members throughout ADF service and beyond and while we ask a lot of our Defence personnel, we also ask a lot of their families.
It is important we recognise — and seek to better understand — the service and sacrifice of women and families, and actively seek to improve the support provided them.
In 2016, the Government established the Female Veterans and Veterans' Families Policy Forum, which provides a platform to generate ideas to address issues facing their communities; to co- design DVA policy and services; and to build networks.
One of the issues raised at this Forum was the inequity between former spouses and former de facto partners of veterans around the Partner Service Pension.
In the last Budget, we allocated $6.2 million over four years to remove this inequity and I am proud the enabling legislation passed this Parliament just a few weeks ago.
Another idea generated by the Forum was to create a Council for Women and Families United by Defence Service, which was established last December.
The Council is chaired by Army veteran and current Chief Executive of BAE Systems Australia, Ms Gabby Costigan.
Its role is to make a difference for veterans and their families by providing timely informed advice to the Government, driving policy outcomes and advocating on behalf of women and families united by defence service.
Transformation of DVA
Under our Government, DVA is changing for the better.
DVA acknowledges that in the past some veterans have had difficulty dealing with the department, but it is changing to meet the needs of veterans of all ages and their families now and into the future.
The Government has committed nearly $500 million to-date to improve DVA, by building a better client experience, making it faster, simpler and easier for veterans and their families to access services, whenever and wherever they need them.
DVA is listening to veterans and their families to understand how it can do things better, and involving them directly in those changes.
DVA is now better connected with Defence, sharing data and enabling it to develop more robust policy based on evidence and respond more effectively to needs of veterans.
This is why I support a question in the 2021 Census regarding ADF service. The data would help DVA and ex-service organisations improve and better target services and support — particularly to the large proportion of veterans currently unknown to DVA.
DVA has consolidated its telephone numbers, making it easier for clients to speak to the right person at the first point of contact.
DVA's partnership with the Department of Human Services is also providing more opportunities for veterans and their families to connect with DVA through the DHS Mobile Service Centres and agent networks.
Under this Government, DVA has developed and introduced an online service portal, MyService, which has streamlined processing for 40 of the most commonly claimed conditions, with some conditions instantly approved.
I am advised around 100,000 veterans have signed up for MyService and this number continues to grow.
MyService also enables DVA clients to apply for free mental health care, update their details and view digital versions of their Veteran Card with a list of accepted conditions online.
DVA is also continuing to digitise its files with more than 300,000 veteran files, or the equivalent of more than 8.6 kilometres of veteran records, already digitised making it faster and easier to process claims.
Productivity Commission
DVA's transformation has been informed by a number of reviews into how services and support are delivered to veterans and their families.
As a result of a recommendation of the Senate Inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, the Constant Battle, the Government asked the Productivity Commission to initiate an inquiry into the veteran compensation and rehabilitation system.
The Productivity Commission's final report, A Better Way to Support Veterans, was provided to the Government on 27 June and tabled on 4 July.
The Government acknowledges this report is of great interest to the ex-service community, and since its release my office has received considerable feedback from individuals and organisations.
The report offers the Government a unique opportunity to consider fundamental reform of the whole veterans' support system to improve outcomes for veterans and their families.
It is some 900 pages, has 69 recommendations and 26 findings.
The key recommendations are far-reaching, proposing major changes to fundamental aspects of the current system of support to veterans and their families — across structures, governance, legislation, policy, delivery operations and services.
I look forward to the Government's response to this report in due course — which will include our response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on its inquiry into transition from the ADF report, and the Veterans' Advocacy and Support Services Scoping Study report.
Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant
Australians are rightly very proud of our current and former serving personnel and the Government is committed to ensuring they are appropriately acknowledged and supported for their service to Australia.
Last year the Prime Minister and I announced that the Government would develop an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant to be enacted in legislation, so the nation can recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and support veterans and their families every day of the year.
It is an important and historic step. The Covenant includes an oath, a new Veteran Card, a Veteran Lapel Pin and a Reservist Lapel Pin.
This legislation is currently before the Parliament and we stand ready to distribute the Veteran Covenant and Lapel Pins to the veteran community promptly once it is enacted into law.
Commemorations
One of the key institutions that ensure our veterans' service is appropriately acknowledged is the Australian War Memorial — it embodies our nation's promise to never forget. It's a place for all generations of Australians to come to honour, learn and heal.
The Government has committed $498.7 million over nine years to a significant redevelopment of the Memorial.
This project will benefit veterans from more recent conflicts by greatly enhancing the Memorial's capacity to tell their stories in the same way it does the First and Second World Wars, Korea and Vietnam.
The new galleries will expand how the Memorial explores Australia's peacekeeping story and create, for the first time, a permanent display dedicated to showing what our nation does to prevent war in the first place.
Along with the Memorial, my department delivers a range of domestic and overseas commemorative activities to ensure the service and sacrifice of our service personnel is appropriately acknowledged and commemorated by the Australian community.
The centenary of the First World War Armistice last November officially concluded the Anzac Centenary period and I was privileged to represent the Government at events both here and overseas and I am proud of the way the commemorations were delivered during the centenary.
Since then there have been other significant commemorative events, including the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Binh Ba, the 75th anniversaries of the D-Day landings and the Cowra Breakout, and the 20th Anniversary of the deployment of the ADF contingent to International Force in East Timor (INTERFET) among others.
These commemorations offer Australians the opportunity to reflect on the service and sacrifice of our veterans, and their families.
As do exhibitions such as the 'Thank you for your service' photographic exhibition which I had the honour of launching in April at Sydney's Anzac Memorial featuring the work of 2018 Press Gallery Journalist of the Year, Alex Ellinghausen.
The exhibition showcased the diversity of current ADF members, veterans and their families. Looking ahead, our attention turns to the Second World War.
Last month we commemorated the 80th Anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, signalling the start of important commemorative events over the next five years.
To mark this period in our history, the Government has committed $10 million to the digitisation of Second World War service records held by the National Archives of Australia.
The digitisation of service records from the First World War provided an invaluable resource for all Australians. Similarly, we will make the Second World War service records freely available to help educate current and future generations about the nearly one million Australians who served from 1939–45.
DVA is also working on the second stage of the Anzac 360 virtual reality app series, which will focus on Australians during the Second World War in South East Asia and the Pacific, with key stories including Hellfire Pass in Thailand and the Sandakan Death Marches in Borneo.
Delivering on our election commitment, the Government is expanding the Saluting Their Service (STS) Commemorative Grants Program, by providing an additional $10 million over four years, with a particular focus on commemorating the Second World War.
I am pleased to advise that the scoping studies to develop a new interpretative centre in Papua New Guinea and to replace the existing interpretative centre at Sandakan Memorial Park in Malaysia are underway.
The interpretive centres will explore the Australian experience of the Papuan and New Guinea campaigns and describe the experiences of those who suffered and died while in captivity at the Sandakan Prisoner of War Camp or on the Death Marches during the Second World War.
I can also advise the scoping study for a new interpretive site at Lemnos, commemorating the role of Australian nurses and doctors during the Gallipoli Campaign on the former site of an Australian field hospital is well advanced.
Our forward commemorative program will include the continued delivery of the iconic Anzac Day dawn services in Turkey and France, combined with nationally broadcast commemorative service events for significant military anniversaries within Australia.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this Government is committed to caring for those who have served our country and their loved ones, and to ensuring the flame of remembrance continues to burn brightly in current and future generations of Australians.
And all Australians can be rightly proud that the Government spends more than $11.5 billion a year to support our veterans and their families.
Year-on-year, this Government has increased this support, and importantly, has made accessing services and support easier and quicker.
While we have achieved a lot, there remains significant work ahead.
I look forward to continuing to work closely with veterans, their families, ex-service organisations, my colleagues and those Opposite to put veterans and their families first and further enhance services and support.
I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the final report of a review conducted by Professor Shergold.
I move:
That the Senate—
This is Anti-Poverty Week and what better time is there to discuss the issues around the adequacy of our social safety net and specifically the payments Newstart and youth allowance. These payments are far too low. They have been for a long time. They have not been increased since 1994, and certainly living costs have risen. We've seen a meaningful increase in the age pension. Not only has there been no real increase in Newstart since 1994; the indexation against the CPI continues, whereas the age pension has had an increase but it has also got a much more meaningful and more complex indexation formula so you do get a more meaningful connection to the true cost of living for the age pension. That's why the Greens are asking the Senate to recognise that this is Anti-Poverty week in 2019, and today also marks United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. We are also noting that raising the rate of Newstart and youth allowance is one of the most effective measures the government can undertake to reduce the rate of poverty in Australia. We also call on the federal government to immediately increase the rate of Newstart and youth allowance.
As I said, today marks the UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. This week is also, as I said, Anti-Poverty Week. Each year the team at Anti-Poverty Week and the coalition that works on this issue choose an evidence based solution as the focus to take action to end poverty. This year, the theme for Anti-Poverty Week is to raise the rate of Newstart by $75 a week. Increasing Newstart and related payments is one of the most effective ways that we can address poverty in Australia. Around one million Australians are reliant on these payments, which have not been increased in real terms for over 25 years.
The rate of Newstart is simply inadequate. It currently provides around $40 a day. This is trapping many people in poverty, and employers are telling us that it acts as a break on job searching. One of the big four consultancy firms, KPMG, recently recommended that Newstart be raised by $100 a week to support the material and psychological needs of unemployed workers looking for employment. We can improve our social safety net to lift people out of poverty and unemployment.
While Australia lacks an official definition of poverty—and we heard about this at the beginning of the week, when I asked the government about their appalling failure to officially develop a definition of poverty—we know what it means to live in poverty. Poverty is about having a lack of money and resources, both income for now and savings for later. But poverty is not just an economic issue. It's also about not having the basic things you need to survive and live with dignity—things like affordable housing, access to good education, quality health services. A lot of Australians are already under financial stress and are juggling bills. People living in poverty have to make difficult choices every day. There are the choices that parents make to skip meals to pay for a child's textbook or to have heating in their home, or they skip meals so their children can eat.
When our social safety net is so low and people don't have other supports, they easily fall into poverty. Of all Australians living below the poverty line, 53 per cent rely on social security as their main source of income. This shows that our current rates of income support are keeping people below the poverty line. The reality is that Newstart and youth allowance are not enough to meet people's basic needs. This is demonstrated through the latest findings of the Foodbank hunger report 2019, which came out on Sunday to mark the start of Anti-Poverty Week. This report found that the number of people seeking food relief has increased by 22 per cent over the last 12 months. Charities are struggling to meet the rising needs for food relief. We know that income support payments are inadequate, because a massive 42 per cent of the people experiencing food insecurity are living on a low income or pension. Australians don't think that people should be living in poverty. I think that Australians want to make sure that people aren't living in poverty and are looked after.
An Essential poll taken in June 2018 found that 92 per cent of people agreed with the statement: 'In Australia, no-one should be without basic essentials like food, health care, transport and power.' A 2018 Anglicare Australia survey found very high levels of compassion towards people experiencing poverty. In this survey, 86 per cent of people agreed nobody deserves to live in poverty, and 49 per cent agreed that people can experience poverty through no fault of their own.
This government is simply out of touch with the needs of our community. It lacks the political will to turn these problems into solutions. We have, in fact, a lot of the answers—they're right at our fingertips—yet the community calls have been ignored. One of the key solutions is increasing Newstart and youth allowance, making sure that our social safety net is actually tight enough to catch people and doesn't let people fall through, which is what it's doing right now.
Australia also has international obligations to reduce poverty. In 2015, we signed onto the Sustainable Development Goals. The first goal is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. This sets out a target for all nations to halve the proportion of people and children living in poverty by 2030, according to national definitions. But we don't have a national definition, do we? The problem is Australia doesn't have that agreed definition of poverty. But the government is refusing to act on it. In 2017, the former minister for social services told ACOSS, 'I cannot agree to your request to work jointly with ACOSS, academics and the community sector to set a national definition of poverty, because I am not convinced of the practical usefulness of such an approach in furthering opportunity and participation among disadvantaged Australians.' Yet, we know Australia needs to make dramatic policy changes if, in fact, we are to meet the sustainable development goal of halving our poverty rate.
Analysis by Professor Peter Saunders found that, if Australia was going to meet the goal of halving our poverty rate, we would need to get the rate down to 5.7 per cent for men, 6.1 per cent for women and 8.6 per cent for children. This would require radical change to our current policy settings. Yet, the government is refusing to use one of the biggest levers we have to reduce poverty, which is increasing Newstart. Today, the Greens are urging the government to fully commit to achieving the first goal of ending poverty in all its forms. It needs to do a number of things in order to do that. Developing a national definition and increasing Newstart and youth allowance are two key things that we could be doing.
I want to discuss children and poverty. Unfortunately, in Australia there's upwards of 700,000 children living in poverty. The theme for International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, which is today is, 'Acting together to empower children, their families and communities to end poverty'. Poverty condemns many children to lifelong disadvantage and entrenches intergenerational disadvantage. Research has now found that poverty has a significant influence on the development of children's brains. Children growing up in poverty too often go to bed or school hungry.
The Foodbank hunger report 2019 found that children represent 22 per cent of food insecure Australians. Tragically, 18 per cent of parents say their children go a whole day without eating at all at least once a week. I hear from so many single parents who go without meals to make sure there is enough food for their family. I hear of parents making so many sacrifices so their children can eat and go to school. Many of us, of course, have made sacrifices for our children, but these are sacrifices that endanger their parents' health as well when they go hungry. A large number of children experiencing poverty are living in families who rely on income support payments. One of the key measures we have available to ending child poverty in Australia, as I keep repeating, is raising the rate of payments. This is especially important for single parents, who were kicked off parenting payment single and onto Newstart. This harmful policy change saw single parents poverty rates rapidly increase from 16 per cent in 2006 to 59 per cent in 2018. We can change poverty rates. We can make sure that single parents who are raising their children on the low rates of Newstart have an increase.
First Nations children are also disproportionately impacted by poverty. The family matters report 2019 was launched this morning. I was there for it down at Old Parliament House. It highlighted First Nations children are 10.2 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in out-of-home care. Tragically, this number is increasing every year. Poverty is one of the drivers for children living in disadvantage and for their connection with the child protection system. Nearly one in three First Nations people is living below the poverty line. This contributes to overrepresentation of First Nations children in out-of-home care. We must take urgent action to end child poverty and build better outcomes for First Nations children across this country. One in 10 family households has one or more unemployed parent, and we have to support these families. I often hear government say, 'This is all about people finding work.' We do very clearly want to support people who are receiving income support to find work, but, when you are facing barriers to work, it makes it even more difficult. Poverty is a barrier to work.
Another report was released this week, by Anglicare, and it was about job availability. You hear the government say: 'We're doing something about this. We're making jobs. We're developing jobs. We're delivering jobs.' Well, they're not delivering enough, and, in the meantime, people are stuck on Newstart for, on average, 159 weeks—three years. Anglicare's report, released on Wednesday, entitled Jobs availability snapshot, highlighted that it is taking people, on average, five years to find work. How can someone survive on Newstart for five years and successfully find employment?
The average duration people spend on Newstart, as I said, is three years. Newstart is not a transition payment for people anymore. It was. I'll grant the government that. It was a transition payment. But who can survive transitioning for three years? For many people over 45, it is longer than that, because they're facing many barriers to work. This is no longer a transition payment, and the government should stop deceiving Australians. They bandy statistics around. They try and manipulate the statistics to make people believe that it's still a transition payment, because they use the people who flow through the Newstart program. No-one's denying that some people flow through it. But there are hundreds of thousands of people who remain stuck on Newstart for years and years because their barriers are not being adequately addressed and, as the report finds, there are not enough jobs.
Newstart doesn't cover your costs for food, let alone the costs of looking for work. These include internet expenses, phone bills, appropriate clothing and transport to attend job interviews. Again, I hear the government say, 'You can use the Employment Fund.' But I haven't found many people—and I've spoken to a lot—who have been able to access the Employment Fund for those sorts of things.
The ongoing stress and struggle to make ends meet can also distract people from undertaking their job search activities, further diminishing employment prospects. Nobody trapped in poverty wants to stay in poverty. Certainly I have not met anybody who wants to. The Jobs availability snapshot found that jobs for people without qualifications or work experience are drying up. There are at least five jobseekers without qualifications competing for every job at their skill level. On top of that, there are 1.16 million people in Australia who are underemployed. The reality is there just aren't enough jobs to go round. There are not enough entry-level jobs, in particular. At one end, you haven't got enough entry-level jobs, for young people, in particular, and, at the other end, employers don't want to be employing people over the age of 45 these days. And think about if you're over 55 and you lose work. The government again will come and tell you about all the programs they're developing. Some of those programs look really good on paper, and some people, they'll tell you, have got work. But that is not enough. It belies the statistics of the fact that people are stuck on Newstart for so long. I wholeheartedly agree with Anglicare when they say that it is now unconscionable and an act of wilful denial to pretend that Newstart can cover basic needs. I'll say that again: it is unconscionable and an act of wilful denial. That's exactly what the government is doing. They're in wilful denial. Their own departments gather their statistics, so they know what they are. They know they're selling a pup to the community when they say this is a transition payment.
There are 200,000 disabled Australians living on Newstart. Successive federal governments have chipped away at the disability support pension. Both sides, past Liberal and Labor governments, have tightened the eligibility criteria and made the application process so difficult. People who should be on DSP are being forced to survive on Newstart. If you are sick or disabled it is even harder to live on Newstart due to higher healthcare costs, medication costs and other equipment and supports that you need for your disability. Australians living on income support payments are having to skip essential medications and delay treatment. Here's what I heard from a disabled person trying to live on Newstart: 'Doctors said I should be on DSP, but I'm stuck on Newstart. The job provider agency seems to overlook chronic illness. The demands are too stressful now. Something has to change because our children are becoming crippled too.' Somebody else said to me: 'I broke down in tears on the phone to my mum the other day about this. Surviving is exhausting.' Those are people that have what the government calls partial capacity to work. In other words, they're living on Newstart with a disability. Only around eight per cent of people with a partial capacity to work are working or can gain work. They also face barriers to work.
The government continues to use harmful and misleading language about people who are trying to survive on our social security system. Our social safety net is failing them. There are many, many people who are suffering, living in poverty on Newstart. It's time that this country recognised it. It seems that the only people that don't recognise it are the government. Please: raise the rate now. Recognise that this system needs help. Support the people you claim to be supporting. Recognise that it needs to increase. Support your other programs by raising Newstart. Raise the rate.
At the outset I acknowledge the senator from Western Australia's passion in relation to this issue and I note that it's an issue which she often speaks about in this place. I don't think that there's a single senator sitting in this chamber who is not concerned about the opportunities which some people in our community are struggling to find: to obtain work, sustainable employment and to progress their lives in the way that I think everyone in this country should have the opportunity to do so. The question is: what are the appropriate policy settings to address that circumstance? That is where the government differs in its approach from the good senator from Western Australia.
We should place this debate in a context. The fact of the matter is that we currently have the lowest proportion of working-age people on welfare in 30 years. That's a good thing. It's a great thing that we have the lowest proportion of working-age people on welfare in 30 years. It should also be noted that in the last budget year this country spent $172 billion on welfare—35 per cent of all government spending is spent on welfare. We do have a substantial social net in this country, and that's an important thing. We should have a substantial social net. We are a rich country and I think we're in a position to offer that.
With respect to Newstart, as the senator did recognise, it is indexed to CPI twice a year. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that many people—and I'd say most people who receive Newstart—are eligible to receive other entitlements from the federal government and indeed from a number of state governments around the country. That should be recognised as well. This government's focus is to try to provide an opportunity for people currently on Newstart to find a path to work, because work is the best form of welfare you can provide to a person. Every day that I'm standing in this place, I'll be looking to how we make it easier, not harder, for every business in this country to employ more people, especially young people—especially young people in regional Queensland in some of the socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in my home state—and get that extra young person an opportunity to seek employment. That's important; it's absolutely fundamental.
The government has instituted a number of programs in order to provide that pathway to work. The government is focused on breaking down the barriers some Australians face in returning to the workforce, which is why we are investing $96 million in Try, Test and Learn, which is trialling innovative pathways to work for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency.
Now, I know that the senator has passionate views with respect to the next subject I am about to touch upon: the cashless debit card. The results in my home state of Queensland are promising. That is the reality of the situation.
You are misquoting the data.
I'm not misquoting the data.
Yes, you are.
Well, let me give you the data. The latest data shows that the number of people receiving Newstart or youth allowance in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions has reduced between June 2018 and June 2019. It has reduced by 8.7 per cent in Bundaberg and by 10.2 per cent in Hervey Bay. That is the actual data. It's not my data; it's the ABS's data. What happened in those areas, as distinct from other areas in regional Queensland, that made Bundaberg and Hervey Bay outliers with respect to reducing youth dependency on Newstart and youth allowance? What was the critical difference? The critical difference was the cashless debit card. That was the only difference. We didn't see that reduction in Logan, south of Brisbane; we didn't see it in Ipswich; we didn't see it in Brisbane; we didn't see it in Mackay and we didn't see it in Townsville. We saw it in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, the only parts of regional Queensland that saw this astonishing decrease. In Bundaberg, 502 people came off Newstart or youth allowance and in Hervey Bay 395 came off Newstart or youth allowance. The statistics are compelling. The data is compelling.
What is also compelling is what my good friend Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler, tells us about the feedback from his constituents. This is his patch, his area. What is he telling us? I've given you the data, now let me tell you what he's hearing from his constituents. He's hearing reports that people are able to budget better and have money left over at the end of the fortnight, so they have some savings. This is what he's telling us; this is what his own people are telling him—his own constituents. They're telling him that people have asked if they can volunteer to go on the card. This is in the legislation, to allow volunteers in the Hinkler trial. Currently, people cannot volunteer in other areas. But they're asking if they can go on the card to assist in their ability to manage their circumstances.
One of the emergency relief organisations in Hervey Bay has reported a reduction in people coming in for free food.
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Well, Senator Siewert, I'll give you the quote from 7.30. This is what happened on 7.30it's straight from the transcript:
There is however some anecdotal evidence the card is having an effect according to this Hervey Bay-based food charity.
JAN CARLSON, WE CARE 2: We have noticed since about July a significant decrease in the number of people coming in for free food through the emergency relief program and an increase, almost parallel in numbers, to the people coming through our low cost food centre and actually purchasing food.
PETER MCCUTCHEON: And do you think that can be attributed to the cashless debit card?
JAN CARLSON: Well, I can't say unequivocally but it's a trend that we have never seen before.
We have never had that, we usually would get in three days we would get at least 30, maybe 36 people through emergency relief previously.
Now we're probably seeing 12 a week.
That's the feedback from constituents in my friend Keith Pitt's seat of Hinkler. That's what his people are telling him. That's what the community is saying. Senator Siewert, if you look at those regional job figures across Queensland for that period—
No it's not! The figures that you had in the media were in fact that there was a significant drop before—
Senator Siewert, interjections are disorderly.
I'll take the interjection, and I'll say that the period was between June 2018 and June 2019. There were three areas in my home state of Queensland which had that significant drop in unemployment: one was outback Queensland, which was incredibly significant. It was so significant that I've made inquiries as to the reason for the significance. The other regions were Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—not in Logan, not in Ipswich, not in Brisbane, not in Mackay, not in Townsville and not in Cairns. It was in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The only difference from those other regions is the fact that they have the cashless debit card. At the very least, it should cause someone to pause and reflect on the information which has been passed through to Keith Pitt, a passionate member for his people in the seat of Hinkler. They should pause and reflect on the circumstances in his region. The people of Australia deserve that pause and reflection.
And it isn't just happening in Queensland. Let me go to the good state of South Australia and the seat of my good friend Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, where the cashless debit card was introduced in the region of Ceduna. Let me quote from Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey. He sat down with the leadership group in Ceduna. That included the Indigenous groups around that greater community, and the Mayor of Ceduna. These are his words:
… we agreed together to trial the cashless welfare card. I'd have to say that community is absolutely delighted with the results. It came on the back of a coroner's report after no less than seven people had died either sleeping rough or in accidents on the road with intoxication. I had been to Ceduna and talked to people at the drying-out centre, where they said, 'Last night there was a woman in here who was eight months pregnant who could not stop throwing up.' It is just heartbreaking when you hear the stories.
This card has made a palpable difference. It has changed Ceduna. The Indigenous leaders there have stood up strongly, and they believe in the card. A gentlemen the other day said to me—
This is a quote from a constituent of Rowan Ramsey's seat of Grey in South Australia—
'I get all the numbers; I get all the figures. But this place just feels like a whole lot better place.'
Another positive example from Ceduna in Rowan Ramsey's seat of Grey. Again, I think it's incumbent upon every senator in this chamber to stand up, sit back and take notice of the results that are being achieved.
I would also like to see a drug-testing trial rolled out as well. I know there will be some who will perhaps say, 'This is a punitive measure. Why do you want to adopt that?' I'll tell you why: one of the biggest impediments to someone getting a job is drug dependency. That's one of the biggest impediments, so anything this government can do to break down that barrier of addiction, we should do, and that deserves a trial.
You are depriving people of a basic income if you do that.
It's not intended to do that, Senator. I'll take that interjection. It's not intended to do that. Instead, it's quite the opposite—it's to assist them to get the necessities of life in a situation where they've got an addiction to drugs. It's to assist them to get on the pathway to employment. If they have a positive drug test and then come back a period of time later and have another one, that person's got a problem. They've got a problem and they need assistance and support. One of the ways in which we can provide that assistance and support is through a cashless debit card to make sure that they get the essentials of life. When that is married with an effective treatment program—you can't have one without the other. If you were to do that, that would be punitive. If you were to simply change their income circumstances without offering an effective treatment program, that would be punitive. But the proposition is that, if they do have that drug dependency, they are then put on a path to treatment so they can actually have the same opportunities that every person in this country deserves. That is the intention behind the policy.
We might well have differences with respect to the appropriate pathway to assist disadvantaged people in this country to realise the opportunities which everyone in this country should have, but the intention underpinning both the cashless debit card and the drug-testing trial is to assist people to manage their circumstances and put them on a pathway where they can have a better life and enjoy a better life. That is the intention, and both the results from my friend Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler, in Queensland, and from my friend Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, in South Australia, are extremely positive.
In my view, we should take heed of those and we should act on those results. Personally, I'd like to see the programs rolled out across wider parts of Australia. I think they're wonderful programs. They need additional research, I'll grant you that, to look at the results, but that feedback from those two local MPs is very positive and promising, and I think it's something which the senators in this chamber should consider.
I rise to speak on the general business motion for today regarding Anti-Poverty Week and the rate of Newstart and youth allowance. 'Poverty exists. Poverty hurts us all.' That is the theme of this year's Anti-Poverty Week, and I earnestly ask the government to take this to heart. That's because, to live up to the ideals we see for ourselves as a country, we must ensure that we do not leave people living in poverty. We are failing miserably in this regard. Three million, or 13.2 per cent, of Australians live below the poverty line, which is defined as 50 per cent of median income. Young people are particularly affected, with half of all households headed by someone younger than 35 experiencing in just the last 12 months one or more indicators of financial stress such as skipping a meal or failing to pay a bill on time.
Tragically, 739,000 Australian children live below the poverty line. The government cannot keep seeing three-quarters of a million children living in poverty and not look to act on it. It cannot think that this is in any way acceptable. Children are unable to change the circumstances they were born into, and they shouldn't be collateral damage from policies of a government that seems to believe that unemployment is a moral failing of an individual. The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth have conducted research which has found there is real damage being done to children who are living in poverty. Data from the Australian government funded longitudinal study of Australian children, which has been following 10,000 children since 2003, was used in their paper To have and to have not: measuring child deprivation and opportunity in Australia. They found:
Children in monetary poverty were more likely to experience deprivations across all Nest dimensions, illustrating that the impacts felt by children in families living below the poverty line spread far wider than just their material basics, to affect all areas of their wellbeing.
These children are significantly more likely to experience multidimensional deprivation and deep deprivation and are significantly deprived in relationships with friends, food security, learning at home, enjoyment of exercise and regular participation in extracurricular activities. Sadly, this damage is potentially carried forward into their adult lives.
The government's cruel policies are not only causing extreme hardship for this generation but carrying it over to the next, which obviously brings significant cost to the children and their communities. The government has to rethink their approach. This government seeks to place the blame for unemployment on the individual to justify its increasingly cruel and heartless policies. It's a callous and cynical view which is dangerously wrong, and it's clear that the blame for unemployment and underemployment should not be placed on the unemployed and underemployed.
I want to expand for a couple of minutes on the idea of the effect of poverty on children. Children who grow up in poverty are particularly tragic because they're deprived of a fair start in life before they can even make the decisions for themselves, and the proportion of children living in poverty is higher than any other age group. Let's think about what it means for a child to live in poverty. It can mean that you go to bed on an empty stomach; you go to bed hungry. It can mean not having a safe and secure home or place to live and sleep. It can mean going to school not only with, maybe, the pain of hunger but the shame that among their peers they're missing out. They probably can't attend school excursions. They often don't have the school uniform. Quite often these kids stand out, and they can be victimised because of that. Or sometimes they don't even get to go to school at all. If the parents can't afford a driver's licence and can't get them to school, if there's no public transport where they live, the kids don't go to school at all.
As I said, they don't get to go on school excursions, and they don't get to participate in things like team sports, because you've got to pay for uniforms and registration to participate in team sports. And so they don't get time to spend with their friends and their peers, which leaves them feeling really lonely and isolated, and this is not good enough. They're missing out on healthy food, physical activity and interacting with people their age, and all those things are so critical to a child's development, with the first five years of their lives obviously being the most important.
Children living in poverty can experience severe physical and health complications, and of course this all has an impact on concentration in the classroom, their homework and, ultimately, whether they complete their education—finish year 12, go on to tertiary education or whatever. Children in poverty are not only anxious for themselves but worry for their parents and their families. As I see it, poverty is a collective challenge, and addressing poverty is a collective responsibility for us all—not shaming people, not trying to make people feel as though they're lesser people because they might have to receive social security of some type. That is not appropriate, but that is how people have been made to feel over the last few years.
For families living in poverty, parents are struggling to get to the end of their pay cheque. Of course, some parents don't even get a pay cheque. They delay things such as buying medicine, going to the doctor, or going to the dentist. They forgo new shoes or a haircut or new clothes for a job interview. We know that many parents skip maybe one or two meals a day. Sometimes they don't eat for a whole day. Sometimes parents will not eat for many days. They do their best to shield their kids from these things. They cover it by saying things like, 'I ate while I was cooking' or 'I was over at the neighbours and had something to eat there.' Parents shouldn't have to do this. To be honest, it's not always possible to shield children from these realities.
We have to remember—and those opposite really need to bear this in mind—that the impact of poverty, especially on young children, can have a profound and lasting impact on their outlook on life as well as the quality of their life outcomes. To many, many people poverty means they cannot imagine a future. As a former early childhood educator, to me that is one of the saddest things to see. I worked with children who, because they came from a low-income or no-income family, could not imagine a future, and it was one of the saddest things I think I've ever seen. These kids deserve a fair go, because when our children are deprived our whole country's future is diminished. It's all right for us in here. None of us in here live below the poverty line. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't take responsibility. We should act in a fair and caring manner, not a callous and punitive manner. We need to make sure that we understand that poverty affects us all and we need to act appropriately.
I mentioned that some people can't afford clothes for an interview. When they can't re-enter the workforce, they can't contribute to the economy. To me, it's a bit of a false economy for those on the other side to want to keep the Newstart rate so low and to deny an increase of any type for these people, because, when you have to choose between a bus fare to get to a job interview or medication from the chemist, you just can't participate properly in society. This government refuses to even acknowledge the critical socioeconomic challenge threatening the Australian way of life, never mind that the government will not lift a finger to do something about it.
I heard Senator Siewert say this, and I've heard many people on this side of the chamber say this: the overwhelming majority of people on Newstart are desperate to get work. They will take any work. They are not dole bludgers. They are not lazy. They are not dealing drugs all the time. We've heard so many comments over the past few months and years from the other side, and they've all been punitive. I haven't really heard anything positive coming from that side. 'If you have a go, you'll get a go.' Well, do you know what? Not everybody is born equal. Not everybody has the opportunity to have a go. We need to remember that and bear it in mind when we're dealing with these situations.
There are many people in work who are underemployed, desperate for more work and unable to meet their basic expenses even with their current hours. In my home state of Tasmania there are 13.89 jobseekers for every entry-level job available. How can you possibly look to blame the individual when the odds are so stacked against them? It's clear that the issue is with the economy, guided, of course, by this third-term Liberal government that doesn't have a clue where it's going. And while the government says Newstart is a temporary payment, the average person on Newstart has been on the payment for three years. I have said it quite a few times in this place, and lots of people on this side and in the Greens have said it in this place: for most people, Newstart is not just a temporary payment.
The government says that Newstart is there to assist in getting a job, not to live on. But it's clear that it's harder to get a job if you cannot afford to get to the interviews, can't pay for interview clothes or can't pay your rent, or if you're worried about where you're living or you can't find enough money for electricity or even food. We should not be grinding people into the ground, which is what I see happening on that side, simply because the government can't see past their flawed ideology and look to care for all Australians. The Prime Minister's constant mantra that the best kind of welfare is a job is just trite. It's a heartless phrase, and it's an insult to those who are desperately looking for a job and are having difficulty putting food on the table for their kids.
The motion today calls on the government to increase the rate of Newstart and youth allowance, and we wholeheartedly support this, but I also call upon the government to reconsider their attitude to the unemployed, to stop the cruel attacks, to stop their blame-shifting and to actually work to make the lives of all Australians better, especially for the children because, when poverty exists, we all hurt, but it hurts the kids the most. They're the ones that you guys need to put a bit more thought into.
I too rise to speak on this motion brought to this chamber by Senator Siewert, and I sincerely thank Senator Siewert for this opportunity to do so. Through the chair: I commend you, Senator Siewert, for your ongoing commitment to this issue. I've seen your involvement in this debate over a long time and, particularly since coming into this chamber, I recognise and acknowledge that the commitment comes from a very sincere and real place.
No-one in this government is saying that it's easy living without a job. There's no doubt about that. Having worked for over a decade in employment services and with people who have been long-term unemployed, I've seen how difficult it is. For some people, there are some really tough and challenging barriers to employment. It can be a very confronting exercise to get up the courage to face, acknowledge and deal with whatever barriers to employment they might have. But when they do deal with them, when they undertake the training they need to address the skills gaps they have, develop their skill base and get a job—as someone who has worked in this space, I know that walking through that with people is one of the most rewarding things that you could ever do. You know that it's made a difference not just to them but also to their families and their wider community.
I think in particular of a program in Geraldton called Real Futures. Real Futures is a program aimed at helping long-term unemployed Aboriginal people in that area get work. Wendy Arnold, the leader of that program, opens the door of their little shopfront on the main street, and people come in. It's amazing what happens there. They reach out with open arms to everyone who walks in, and big changes and big transformations happen. I went and visited them prior to coming into this place as a senator, and I saw people walk in there. I remember one fellow who walked into that place who wanted to get a job. He was interested in working in a traffic control business that had a policy of no tolerance for drugs and alcohol. As part of applying for the job, they had to pass a medical, and it's obvious that, if someone has drugs in their system, that would prevent them from getting the job.
One of the services that Real Futures offer is prescreening. They'll do a drug test before someone needs to go before the employer's own drug test. They can check whether there has been an issue of substance use or abuse. They're able to test that it is in fact out of their system. I watched a fellow walk in. He walked very quietly to the front desk and spoke to the people there. He very quietly asked if they had a drug test. They had a little conversation about the situation. I thought, 'Isn't that great? Here's an organisation—Real Futures are offering this service—right in the middle of Geraldton, and people are confident and bold enough to go there.' I entered into the conversation myself, and the guy said that he'd been off marijuana for over four weeks and he was confident that it's out of his system, but he just wanted to check because he really wanted to get the job.
Senator Bilyk said that it's a trite comment: the best form of welfare is a job. Well, I've seen the impact that it has on people's lives. When you get a job, it absolutely transforms your life. I reject the characterisation of that because it does make a difference. You can politicise it as much as you like, but it really does make a difference. Senator Scarr spoke about the cashless debit card. I just want to add a little bit to what he was saying. I'm from Western Australia, and we've seen the trial of the cashless debit card for some time up in Kununurra. Kununurra and Ceduna, in South Australia, have been running it for the longest time of the trial sites, and the results are there.
No-one is saying that the cashless debit card is a panacea to the social problems that come from drug and alcohol abuse in these communities, but you only need to talk to, for example, the senior sergeant of police, who tells us that prior to the cashless debit card there used to be four or five nights of continuous chaos in the town after welfare payments hit. The ambulances service would respond and had a significant rate of call-outs on the nights immediately following the welfare payments. You can see what happens. I haven't got the stats in front of me since the introduction of the cashless debit card. I just wanted to add to what Senator Scarr was talking about. I know, through my own observation of what has happened and from speaking to people on the ground, that, instead of there being four or five nights of issues, there are now only one or two. It doesn't mean that there aren't still issues, but the ambulance service says that there has been somewhere in the order of a 30 per cent reduction in the number of alcohol related call-outs to deal with situations.
What I'd like to see, though—and I'd like to make a contribution now with regard to the cashless debit card—is a real focus on the technology that is the cashless debit card. I really want to call on the banks and on the retailers to work together to develop the technology and augment it so that it becomes a product that is offered, in fact, by all banks. One of the issues that you hear is that anyone who is on the cashless debit card has a very identifiable card. While it's just a silver card, the reality is that, if you've got that silver card, it is obvious to people in those towns that you must be on welfare. One of the good things that could happen is that the product is offered by any bank—the Commonwealth Bank or ANZ or Westpac or whatever—and it is an unidentified product. I think that would make a big difference to the stigma issue, which I acknowledge can be an issue for people. I urge the banks to cooperate with this government and to work with the retailers as well to improve the technology. One of the limitations of the cashless debit card as it stands right now is that it works by limiting the merchant. So you can't use the cashless debit card at a merchant that sells alcohol. The problem with that is that the merchant could also sell groceries. You need to ensure that welfare recipients are able to purchase those necessities. So, if there were any expansion of the cashless debit card, you would have to address that fundamental issue, because, if you were to take it ubiquitously across the country, merchants across the country would need to be able to take it. Unless you get down to item-level blocking, where you're restricting the sale of particular items rather than blocking it on an entire merchant level, it would prevent its ability to be rolled out. I want to call upon the banks and the retailers to work together, because the technology solution is there and it can be developed and it could make a big difference to people if that were able to happen. You could limit the sale of particular items rather than limiting a merchant. That would remove any of those physical barriers that are in the way, those things that actually might get in the way of someone just being able to go about their lives without any great interference.
Just quickly, the other thing that I want to acknowledge in this debate is that there is a great program. I spoke a little about it in my contribution to the take-note session. Youth Jobs PaTH really is a great example of a program that actually provides greater assistance to people. Those opposite didn't support it in its introduction. They said that they were going to remove it had they won the election on 18 May, and that's really disappointing, because one of the parts of this program, which I just wish we'd take the politics out of and think about for a minute, is the fact that an extra $200 is provided to the participant of that program, to the intern that signs up to it. They get an extra $200 a fortnight which assists them with those important things of getting to a job and keeping that job. I think it's something that we should really sincerely work together on, to look at how the mainstream employment services system, which is jobactive—it's got a $7 billion price tag on it—could over time actually be developed and that those sorts of ideas, like we're seeing with Youth Jobs PaTH to provide that extra assistance to people, could actually be considered in future in the employment services system. I'll finish my remarks there.
I would also like to speak in favour of Senator Siewert's motion today, and I would like to congratulate her on her strong advocacy on this issue. Like her, Labor also calls on the government to immediately increase the rate of Newstart and youth allowance. We note in the motion that's been presented to the Senate that this week's also Anti-Poverty Week. The easiest action that we all can take to reduce income inequality and effectively reduce poverty in Australia would be to increase Newstart and youth allowance. There is an enormous amount of evidence available that shows the merits of lifting Newstart and the negative impacts of continuing to leave vulnerable people without enough income to survive.
Earlier this year, I visited Ozanam House in North Melbourne, a crisis and transitional accommodation facility for homeless Melburnians run by VincentCare, which has recently been renovated. When I met with them, the leadership team made a point of describing to me how desperately low the rates of Newstart and youth allowance are and the impacts that had, the risks for people living on the cusp of homelessness and how it made getting back into a stable situation very difficult for people who have fallen into that black hole.
In July, the CE of cohealth, one of Victoria's largest community health services, wrote to me to share her organisation's concerns about the impact of the low rate of Newstart and what that is having on the health and wellbeing of vulnerable Victorians. She told me that the people trying to live on Newstart 'cannot afford the costs of health care, meals are skipped and fresh nutritious food too is often out of reach, and the stress caused by worrying about paying for bills and keeping a roof over their head is a constant and significant issue'. She also quoted, in that letter to me, a report that showed vulnerable people are twice as likely to have a long-term health condition, as well as twice a likely to suffer from chronic illness, and on average will die three years earlier.
In 2018, a Deloitte Access Economics report for the Australian Council of Social Service highlighted the inadequacies of the indexation arrangements that applied to Newstart. I touched on this area in my first speech in this chamber. There's also a need to review the increase in the length of time that people are spending on Newstart—and I know Senator Siewert made mention that it's about three years on average. It's a disgrace that people are having to wait that long in order to transition into work, as it's called, when this government keeps talking about reducing the unemployment rates and about the number of jobs that they supposedly create. But what we are finding is that there is a large cohort of people out there in the real world who are doing it tough and who are struggling to find meaningful work.
That same report also clearly laid out the inaccuracies in the government's position. The Liberal-National government like to claim that the low rate of Newstart encourages recipients to get a job and they keep saying that the best form of welfare is a job. A job is not welfare. As we've also spoken about in this place on numerous occasions—and I know it's in Senator Keneally's portfolio area and I've also been assisting her on it—a number of workers have been exploited and have been paid below the minimum wage. For this government to talk about how there are all these jobs out there—well, where are they? People are clearly struggling to find work and to transition into meaningful opportunities. What Deloitte also found was that Australia has a very low Newstart payment, and when you compare that to other wages the fact is that the rate of Newstart is way too low and acts as a barrier to people trying to find work. They cannot afford the transport to get to interviews. They can't buy the appropriate clothing or equipment. They can't even afford the training and education that they need to get back into the workforce.
As respected ANU economist Peter Martin has pointed out in a piece for The Conversation just last month:
A decade ago the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warned that Newstart was low enough to raise "issues about its effectiveness in providing sufficient support for those experiencing a job loss, or enabling someone to look for a suitable job".
And there's no guarantee that a job is even available.
Earlier this week we read Anglicare's jobs availability snapshot, which showed that five jobseekers are applying for every entry-level position. And, by their own admission, Anglicare says, 'This is a conservative estimate because it does not include the 1.8 million Australians who say they're underemployed.' It's hard to believe, and yet this is the situation that the Liberal-National government have created. They have made it almost impossible for someone to find work while on Newstart, while at the same time demonising Newstart and other welfare recipients for not getting a job.
We are trapping people in poverty and then blaming them when they find it impossible to get out of the black hole. On a human level alone, the evidence shows how critical it is that this government acts immediately to increase Newstart. The case for an increase to Newstart on an economic basis is also compelling. The same Deloitte Access Economics report found that an increase of $75 a week would return about $1.5 billion a year in extra tax, as recipients spend the increase and boost the economy.
In June this year, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Philip Lowe, suggested that, although it was a matter for the government, an increase to Newstart would help stimulate the economy, as would any increase to household income.
I also noted that the Grattan Institute, which the government usually relies on for a number of their reports, wrote a paper in July on this subject matter. They described that there are many ways that the Treasurer could stimulate the economy. Surprise, surprise, they said a boost to Newstart would offer the economy an immediate stimulus. The Grattan Institute said:
… it puts money in the hands of the people most likely to spend every cent.
Not to mention the savings for the taxpayer that would arise from the cohort of people who would likely be healthier and in more stable housing, better able to get a job and would spend less time on welfare should they find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being without work.
The list of people and organisations calling for an increase in Newstart is growing ever longer. This includes some notable entries, including a number of conservative MPs and senators in this place. They join organisations like the Australian Council of Social Service, St Vincent De Paul, church groups and welfare advocates who have been arguing for a rise in Newstart for many, many years. One doesn't have to search far to find the real-life stories of people who live the experience of trying to make ends meet on Newstart.
Today I want to fill my speech in this place with some words of others. I do so because this issue is now beyond the rhetorical one-liners, the gotcha moments, that those opposite constantly throw back at Labor, the Greens and others on the progressive side of politics. I want to lay out the voices and clear evidence calling for an increase to Newstart and give voice to those who are living every day on just $40 a day. And I bet a lot of us in this place would spend $40 a day just at Aussies—on coffee, cakes and other things for lunch and dinner. The time is well and truly passed to increase Newstart. For the sake of the people tonight who will go hungry and their children who shiver in the cold, for the sake of people who are sick because they can't afford to get better, and for the many women who want to leave violent relationships, we on this side urge the government to immediately raise the rate of Newstart.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to also support raising the level of Newstart and youth allowance. This is an incredibly important issue for so many Australians who find themselves stuck on Newstart through no fault of their own and find themselves struggling to make ends meet. The conversation is even more relevant today, which is both part of Anti-Poverty Week and also the UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. If you are on Newstart, you are living on a payment that is significantly below the poverty line.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my colleagues that the rate of Newstart needs to be increased without delay. The rate of Newstart is just too low. It's supposed to be a temporary payment but, on average, people are on Newstart for three years. It is not because they don't want to work hard and have a go, as some on the government benches may have you believe; it is because the jobs just aren't there. Unemployment is at over five per cent and there are over 1.9 million Australians who don't have work or don't have enough work to make ends meet.
The Newstart rate is so low that it is actually preventing people from getting work. It is stopping them from having the 'go' that the government wants them to have. It is trapping people in poverty today. You cannot live on $40 a day. It simply does not cover the basic cost of living, let alone all the additional costs that you have if you are trying to get yourself into employment—the costs of access to the internet, appropriate clothing and even transport to job interviews. If you are really struggling to make ends meet, pay your bills and support your family, that is obviously a barrier to getting into work.
The Prime Minister has previously said that the harder you work, the better you do. He is essentially saying to Australians who are struggling that it is all up to them—just try harder, just do better. What he is saying is that if you are poor, if you are stuck on Newstart, it is your fault; nobody else is responsible, it is just your fault. That could not be further from the truth. This Prime Minister and this government are doing nothing to deal with the crisis of poverty in Australia today.
Poverty is a huge issue. The ACOSS report of last year, Poverty in Australia, found over 13 per cent of Australians were living below the poverty line. That is more than three million people, including 739,000 children. That's three million Australians and 739,000 children. The recent Foodbank hunger report found that 14 per cent of Australians are eating less food than they need due to a lack of money. In 2019, no-one should be going without food. No-one should be having to go without food so that their children can eat on that night. It's especially difficult to accept that that's happening in one of the richest countries in the world, our country. So many of the Australians on Newstart and on youth allowance make up these Foodbank statistics, and it's absolutely shameful, given how easy it would be to help them get through it by raising payment rates.
Take Ross, who shared his story with that Poverty in Australia report. He said:
I'm an ex-Australian soldier who returned to Australia, couldn't find work and was shunted into Newstart and (Work for the Dole). I have a three-year-old and barely have enough money to feed/clothe him or I. The extra money would help us "survive" until I could get back on my feet, employment-wise.
Does the government think that Ross isn't working hard enough? Does the government think that Ross is not having enough of a go? Does the government think that he should just try a little bit harder? What about Ross's three-year-old son? Doesn't he deserve a good start in life? At the moment, he is one of the 739,000 children in Australia today, right now, who are living in poverty.
For a child that lives in poverty, it's not just about having a secure home and enough to eat—as if that weren't important enough. Poverty limits a child's future, it limits their ability to learn, it limits their opportunities. It can mean going to school on an empty stomach. It can mean missing out on excursions and not being able to participate in the things that all the other children are enjoying. It can make it difficult to spend time with friends. All of that can leave those children who are living in poverty feeling ashamed about what they're missing out on, feeling excluded, feeling isolated.
The tragedy of it is that it just doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't need to be this way. The government could help hundreds of thousands of Australians and their families if they just showed some compassion and raised the Newstart rate. If compassion isn't enough to motivate this government to get them to act, then perhaps they can listen to the economic arguments for raising Newstart. We've seen over the past few weeks economist after economist ringing the alarm bells about the Australian economy. Only yesterday did we see the IMF substantially downgrade their forecast for Australia's economic growth. Today in the media, businesses are screaming out for the government to act to boost our faltering and flagging economy. Up until now, the governments have had their heads in the sand when it comes to the state of the economy. They keep telling us: 'Everything is fine. We've got a plan and our plan is going great.' Well, has anyone seen this plan? We haven't, the Australian people haven't, and I'm pretty sure that it doesn't exist.
Here's an idea for the government: raise the rate of Newstart. Research by Deloitte found that raising Newstart would help create economic growth while helping regional areas that are most in need of help. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, has said that now would be a good time to raise the rate of Newstart in order to boost economic growth. Even the Treasurer has admitted that raising Newstart would be good for the economy. So why not do it?
It will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians and it will help boost our economy.
If you're still not sure about it on the other side, why don't you ask one of the following who have called for an increase to Newstart: former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, former Nationals Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, deputy Nationals leader Senator Matt Canavan, Liberal senator Dean Smith, Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, Liberal-National MP Andrew Wallace and, lastly, Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos, whom we all would acknowledge is a well-respected contributor in this place. And they are not alone either, because the business community is also calling for a raise in the Newstart rate, as are a host of not-for-profits and charities around the country. All of those people and all of those organisations are in agreement with the 75 per cent of Australians who agree with raising the Newstart rate. So why is it that the government will not listen to the overwhelming public opinion and public support for raising the Newstart rate? Why is it that they won't do the compassionate, logical and sensible thing and raise the Newstart rate? It's because, instead of helping those people on Newstart, the government is currently doing its best to target them, to isolate them and to stigmatise them, with their terrible robo-debt program, with their discriminatory cashless welfare cards and with their demeaning drug-testing programs.
The government's legally dubious robo-debt scheme, which they want to rollout to target even more vulnerable Australians, is based on flawed calculations and it has an error rate of one in five. The cashless cards that they want to roll out across the country are preventing people from being able to purchase essential items at affordable prices. Those cashless welfare cards are excluding people from being able to participate in their community, in community events, in services and in activities that don't accept the card.
How about the proposed rollout of drug testing for social security recipients? How indiscriminate! How demeaning! It is something that is going to waste millions of taxpayer dollars. It's a project that medical and policy experts have said just won't work. Why spend millions of dollars on programs when there is no evidence to suggest that they are going to help people get off social security payments, off Newstart or off youth allowance? Why do all of that when you could just raise the Newstart rate, which we all know would have a massive impact on those hundreds of thousands of Australians who are relying on it today? Families are struggling and the government just doesn't seem to care, so take your heads out of the sand and raise the rate.
Question agreed to.
I note document Nos. 7 and 8 on today's Notice Paper on the Migration Act—the Independent Health Advice Panel quarterly report for 1 April to 30 June 2019 and the government response—that are tabled here as required by the medevac legislation. The summary of the Independent Health Advice Panel's June quarterly report is proof that medevac is working as intended. It's simple: if you are sick, you should be able to see a doctor. Labor believes that we can be strong on border security without being weak on humanity.
Medevac allows vulnerable people on Manus and Nauru to get the treatment they require, and the process is controlled by the minister or government-appointed doctors. This report reveals that in the period between 1 April and 30 June, 15 cases were referred to the Independent Health Advice Panel. In nine cases, the panel upheld the minister's refusal to transfer. The panel only overturned the minister on six occasions, and I need to make the point again: the panel is staffed by doctors appointed by the government. This means the independent panel during this period had agreed with the minister on more occasions than not. The Morrison government and the Minister for Home Affairs will do everything in their power to discredit medevac as they attempt to repeal it.
Yesterday the Minister for Home Affairs tabled a different report in the parliament, saying he used his power to refuse the transfer of a family member on character grounds. What I'm about to say may come as some surprise, but I congratulate the home affairs minister for using these laws—laws that the Labor opposition put in place—to ensure that the Australian community remains safe. Under medevac, the minister can refuse to transfer on security or serious character grounds. Unlike refusals on medical grounds, which can be reviewed by the Independent Health Advice Panel, decisions of this nature do not get reviewed and cannot be overturned. These laws have actually strengthened ministerial controls from what existed before medevac. In fact, before medevac became law, the courts were deciding medical transfers on health grounds only, not even taking into consideration security concerns.
I'll also take this opportunity to highlight that it is a legislative requirement that anyone who is transferred to Australia under medevac must be placed in onshore detention unless the minister explicitly approves their release into the community. The home affairs minister is so desperate to distract from the 95,000 aeroplane people who have arrived on his watch that he's boasting about using a power Labor ensured was in place to keep security threats out of the country. This report being tabled in the parliament is also a legislative requirement, and it keeps the home affairs minister accountable. It puts the facts on the public record in the parliament, explains his decision and allows the Australian public to understand it. If it weren't for this report being tabled in the parliament, the home affairs minister could make any outrageous claim he wanted without being held to account.
When it comes to medevac, the Minister for Home Affairs has made a multitude of outrageous, untruthful and desperate claims. In March, the minister claimed medical transfers were going to displace Australians from hospital beds—a claim disputed by doctors and hospitals across Australia. The minister argued that two doctors from Nimbin could force the government to bring people from Manus or Nauru to Australia. These claims are simply not true. The report tabled today and, indeed, the report tabled by the minister in the other place make that clear.
The minister also claimed that a thousand people would flood Australia through medevac. Well, that hasn't happened at all! Neither have his claims that people could be transferred without the government's consent. This minister said on Sky News in June, 'People of bad character can come, are able to come and, in fact, are required to come under Labor's laws that they passed.' It's clear that the Minister for Home Affairs, just like the Prime Minister, is loose with the truth. This report before the parliament is proof that these claims from the Minister for Home Affairs are not true. By his own admission in a report tabled yesterday in the other place, the minister has made clear that he actually has the power to stop dangerous individuals being transferred to Australia. These reports that were tabled today are proof that medevac is working. Labor strongly supports medevac. These laws should not be repealed by the government, and people in need who are sick should be able to receive medical attention.
Order! Senator Keneally, your time has expired. Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks?
Yes, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I rise to take note of documents produced under order by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. On 12 September the Senate ordered Minister Dutton and the home affairs department to produce a series of documents relating to the ongoing performance of Paladin. It's one of a growing number of motions that this chamber has passed in relation to the Paladin scandal, and I thank those on the crossbench who have joined Labor in demanding accountability from the government on this issue.
We've had to move these motions because this Liberal-Nationals third-term government, particularly this minister and this department, are allergic to transparency. Let's remind ourselves that Paladin are a tiny firm registered to a beach shack on Kangaroo Island, where they were handpicked for a half-billion-dollar contract by this government to provide services at the refugee detention facilities on Manus Island. The government would like us to ignore this inconvenient fact. They'd also like us to ignore that they were warned by KPMG that the firm was a moderate to high financial risk and that the company lacked the capital and the experience to manage such large contracts, particularly one that was 35 times the company's annual revenue in 2016. I mean, seriously: what could possibly go wrong?
Well, as we now know, just about everything did. A senior home affairs official told estimates, with regard to Paladin:
To date, we're quite happy with the services that they're undertaking.
Those comments were made in February 2019. Thanks to the work of the Senate and the documents that it ordered the government to produce, we now know that 'quite happy' was, at best, quite generous. The documents produced under this order reveal that Paladin recorded 3,740 failed performance measures between July 2018 and April 2019 alone. That's a staggering number of errors, mistakes and failures, and the vast majority occurring before the home affairs official claimed that they were 'quite happy' with Paladin's performance.
On 10 September 2019 Senator Cash told this chamber that these incidents were 'often related to relatively minor administrative failures'. These supposed minor issues actually equated to over $11 million worth of abatements that Paladin is due to pay back to the government for failing to perform the duties it was contracted to perform. I wouldn't describe these issues as minor. We know about a number of them because of a previous order which demonstrated the utter farce that is occurring on Mr Dutton's watch in Papua New Guinea. Paladin staff have been fired for unprofessional behaviour in meetings, inappropriate posts on social media and drink driving. The company openly asked the department whether it should 'help out' in the case of 'unforeseen bribes and corrupt levels of fees' during contract negotiations. Let's be clear: Paladin asked the department to help it out in paying unforeseen bribes and corrupt levels of fees. And we know that a home affairs official literally fell through the floor of a building because the wood had rotted away, despite the fact that the company is responsible for maintaining the centre as part of its $20 million a month pay cheque.
Worse still, the Department of Home Affairs left it to Paladin to self-report all their own failings. We now know that home affairs staff were so scared to visit the centre, because of concerns for their safety, that they didn't perform an inspection for 15 months. This is despite the fact that Ernst & Young had warned in a report that there is an inherent risk in the significant reliance placed on self-reporting, and that was specifically in regard to Paladin. This Paladin contract is an utter train wreck. It's a half-billion-dollar train wreck that the Australian public has paid for, yet it's totally par for the course of what we've come to expect under the incompetent leadership of Minister Dutton. The government backed the wrong horse on Paladin. But instead of cutting ties with the company after their thousands upon thousands of errors, they extended the contract again in July 2019, and that really says all that needs to be said about Minister Dutton and his colleagues opposite.
This is a government that doesn't respect the taxpayer enough to use their money wisely or to tell them the truth when they make a mistake. This is a government that throws good money after bad rather than fessing up when they get it wrong. And this is a government that shies away from oversight, accountability and review wherever possible. The Paladin affair is a case study of everything wrong with this government, and we will continue to hold the minister and those opposite accountable for their waste, mismanagement and incompetence in home affairs.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
This report makes for some incredible reading. If you read this report, you would think that everything was perfect in the land of jobs, small business and employment when, in fact, there are many issues. I note that the department raises as a highlight the ParentsNext employment program. It says it has been successfully implemented from 2 July 2018 and has completed its first year servicing contracts. Then, if you turn over the page to 'Challenges', apparently one of the challenges the department had was:
On 4 December 2018, ParentsNext was referred to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry into the program’s trial and subsequent broader rollout.
I question why that's a challenge. Why is the Senate looking at ParentsNext as a challenge? It's absolutely remarkable! The fact is that the department failed to rollout that program properly, which is why we needed a Senate inquiry into the program. That inquiry found many problems with the program, to the extent that the department has changed some of the mechanisms they were using to rollout that program. It has put more controls on the providers, but it has not done it adequately, because we are still hearing about onerous activities being placed on parents.
They go further in the report, giving a little vignette of someone who's participated in the ParentsNext program and qualified for a job. It doesn't point out that the program itself is so blurred it doesn't actually know what it's supposed to be targeting. They claim employment outcomes, but it's not supposed to be an employment program. The program doesn't know whether it's an early intervention and prevention program—and, if it is, it should give the money to the agencies that are doing a very good job at state and territory level with some of those early intervention and prevention programs but which don't have enough money. Is it a pre-employment program? Is it an employment program? The government says it isn't an employment program, because we're talking about, by and large, mothers. Most of the participants in this program are mothers. The program doesn't have a proper exemption process either, so it's caught up mothers who were already studying. They've had to, in fact, drop their study in order to go and see the service providers. But one of the most fundamental flaws in the program is the fact that it applies the Targeted Compliance Framework. That's also claimed as a highlight in the department's report. It says:
The Targeted Compliance Framework was implemented successfully from 1 July 2018.
I challenge that.
The government must be so worried about the fact that the first two reports they tabled on the targeted compliance program in estimates gave us a lot of detail. They broke the information down into cohorts and where people were getting demerit points. They were quite useful documents. What they've provided most recently for the most recent data, which they didn't report for quite a long time, is a document that does not provide the detail and the data most useful to see whether the program is affecting people on ParentsNext—women on ParentsNext—and whether it's disproportionately impacting on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, for example, or people with disability and homelessness. The preliminary data showed it actually was. A very important indicator that came out of the data they did provide is that 44 per cent of people that have three demerit points—in other words have a capability assessment—were taken back to zero. In other words, their vulnerabilities were not picked up and the employment plan they were put on was inappropriate, which points to very clear flaws in the whole jobactive process. My question is: why are the government not releasing the full data? Why didn't they enable us to see the full data so we could see where the program is impacting? Who were those people? In what streams were the 44 per cent of people who were taken back to zero demerit points because of the inappropriateness of their plans? What streams were they in? Were they in A, B or C? I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. 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—
PROTECTION OF THE SEA (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS) AMENDMENT (AIR POLLUTION) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
Australia is the fifth largest user of shipping services in the world. Ten per cent of the world's sea trade passes through Australian ports, with international shipping carrying over 99 per cent of Australia's imports and exports by volume. A critical component of Australia's domestic freight task, around 15 per cent, is also carried by coastal shipping.
While shipping is the lifeblood of the global economy, transporting around 90 per cent of world trade, it also contributes around 13 per cent of global airborne sulphur oxide emissions. These emissions are known to have significant environmental and human health impacts, including acid rain, increased rates of lung cancer and respiratory illnesses.
As growth prospects for maritime trade continue to be strong, sulphur oxide pollution from ships will continue to increase if no action is taken to restrict these emissions. The cumulative impacts of air pollution, even away from the coasts and shipping routes, add up in economic costs.
To address these impacts, the global shipping standards body, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), has been progressively tightening sulphur oxide emission standards for ships since 2005.
In 2016, the IMO confirmed that from 1 January 2020, the sulphur content in marine fuel oil must not exceed 0.50 per cent by weight, an 85 per cent reduction from the current maximum allowable 3.50 per cent. This latest IMO global sulphur standard is prescribed in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
Ship operators have several options to comply with the new IMO sulphur regulations, including using low sulphur marine fuel oil, diesel or alternative fuel types with low to zero sulphur, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), biofuels and hydrogen, as well as using fully electric vessels. Ships can also continue to use high sulphur fuel oil provided they are fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system, known a 'scrubber', to reduce sulphur in their emissions to below the 0.50 per cent limit.
In October 2018, the IMO agreed to further prohibit the carriage of high sulphur fuel for propulsion purposes on board a ship from 1 March 2020 (carriage ban). This is to ensure a level-playing field by discouraging ships from burning high sulphur fuel on the high seas, away from a country's jurisdictional boundaries.
The carriage ban comes into effect two months after the 1 January 2020 low sulphur commencement date to allow ships sufficient time to dispose of any remnant high sulphur fuel that they may be carrying for use.
As a signatory to MARPOL, Australia has already legislated the 0.50 per cent sulphur limit from 1 January 2020 in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Sea) Act 1983 (POTS Act).
However, the POTS Act requires further amendment to legislate the subsequent IMO ruling on the high sulphur fuel carriage ban.
This Bill amends the POTS Act primarily to:
These amendments are necessary to implement Australia's continued international obligations under MARPOL and to ensure Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industries is aligned with globally agreed standards. Australia's major trading partners have implemented, or are also working to implement, the sulphur cap.
The high sulphur fuel carriage ban amendment will not impose any additional financial impact on shipping companies or increase freight costs, as ships are already prohibited in the POTS Act from burning non-compliant fuel from 1 January 2020.
The IMO recognises that there may be transitional issues to the global implementation of the sulphur cap and has worked with Member States, as well as the shipping industry and fuel oil suppliers, to develop guidelines on the consistent implementation of the 0.50 per cent sulphur limit to help ships meet the new requirement. These guidelines include standardised reporting of the non-availability of compliant fuel to help port state control authorities to take appropriate action to mitigate non-compliance issues.
The Bill also seeks to make other minor administrative amendments to the POTS Act to:
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has consulted on the implementation of the sulphur cap with Australia's maritime industry, fuel oil suppliers and port industries for over 18 months. The industry is supportive of Australia's consistent application of the new sulphur standard to ensure a global level playing field.
The Australian Government is committed to protecting our coastal communities from ship pollution. Implementing the new stringent global mandate on reducing sulphur emissions from ships in Australian waters will ensure Australians benefit from the improved health and environmental outcomes of cleaner air.
The carriage ban on high sulphur fuel oil is important for the global enforcement of the sulphur cap to ensure it is fairly applied across international shipping.
These sulphur-related amendments to the POTS Act will ensure Australia has up-to-date legislation to implement our obligations under MARPOL.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2019 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2019
This Bill contains measures which will assist older Australians, help farmers and tourism operators, improve the efficiency of the Australian Energy Regulator, ensure that consumer privacy remains central to the Consumer Data Right regime and protect retirement savings from erosion.
Schedule 1 to the Bill extends the concessional tax treatment of genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments to those under Age Pension qualifying age.
A key feature of the treatment of these payments is the tax-free component. However, currently a person can only receive the tax-free component if they are aged below 65 years at the time of their termination or retirement from their employer.
The Government is making this change to address the situation where some older Australians who, due to their age, cannot access either the Age Pension or the tax-free component of genuine redundancy or early retirement scheme payments.
These amendments will assist older Australians who receive a genuine redundancy or early retirement scheme payment but are not yet able to receive the Age Pension.
The measure applies to genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments made to individuals on or after 1 July 2019.
Schedule 2 to the Bill provides further luxury car tax relief to those farmers and tourism operators who purchase heavy-duty passenger vehicles as part of their business. The proportion of luxury car tax that can be refunded will be increased, and the maximum amount of the refund will also be increased to $10,000. These changes will apply to eligible vehicles acquired on or after 1 July 2019.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to expand the Board of the Australian Energy Regulator from three to five members and ensure the expanded Board can operate efficiently.
This measure recognises the scope and complexity of the AER's work have changed significantly over recent years, through the growing number of energy market participants and rules to be enforced, and through its key roles in energy policies such as the Default Market Offer.
Amendments are also made to ensure the validity of future appointments under the Australian Energy Market Agreement.
This measure implements the model agreed by the COAG Energy Council on 26 October 2018. The amendments were agreed by the COAG Energy Council on 23 August 2019.
Schedule 4 to the Bill amends the Consumer Data Right to ensure that consumer privacy remains central to the regime.
It requires that the ACCC activate the power already afforded to them in the original Act to write rules allowing consumers to request that Accredited Data Recipients delete Consumer Data Right data relating to them.
By legislating that the ACCC must include rules relating to the deletion of personal data, we are encouraging longer lasting confidence in the system and helping to ensure that respect for consumer's wishes for how their data is used is a central element of the Consumer Data Right.
Schedule 5 to the Bill improves the lost and unclaimed superannuation regime to enable the Commissioner of Tax to calculate and pay interest on ATO held super they proactively reunite with members' active accounts. This is another step in the Government's agenda to ensure that peoples' hard-earned retirement savings are protected from erosion.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately. 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 into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
MEDICAL AND MIDWIFE INDEMNITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 amends the Medical Indemnity Act 2002 and related legislation to streamline the legislation underpinning the Government's support for medical indemnity insurance. This Bill provides certainty to insurers and practitioners of the Commonwealth's ongoing support for medical indemnity insurance, a level playing field for medical indemnity insurers and better protection for practitioners.
I introduce this Bill today with the support of the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and medical indemnity insurers. This Bill is the culmination of a two year consultation process for improving existing arrangements. The Government thanks practitioner groups, industry representatives and medical indemnity insurers for their assistance in developing this Bill.
The improvements in this Bill take effect from 1 July 2020. The Government is introducing this Bill with ample time prior to effect so insurers have time to implement necessary changes to their operational requirements.
The Government has decided to subsidise the medical indemnity market to prevent market failure and stabilise the industry after Australia's largest medical indemnity provider, United Medical Protection, was placed in provisional liquidation in May 2002. At the time, there was uncertainty as to
The Government continues to fund seven professional indemnity schemes whether practitioners could access indemnity insurance, coinciding with an increase in claims costs and premiums. The Government's involvement has ensured a more disciplined approach to risk management for professional indemnity insurance and a reduced risk of failure from medical indemnity providers.
to enable privately practising doctors, health practitioners and midwives access affordable professional indemnity insurance.
The Government remains committed to guaranteeing that these schemes continue to operate. In the 2018-19 financial year alone, the Government provided $83 million in support of practitioners and to the continual operation of these schemes.
The Government currently funds the following schemes:
1. The Premium Support Scheme, which is there to help doctors whose medical indemnity costs exceed 7.5% of their gross private medical income. Around 1,000 medical practitioners currently participate in the PSS.
2. The High Cost Claims Scheme, which is designed to help medical indemnity insurers by funding 50% of the cost of medical indemnity insurance payouts between $500,000 and up to the limit of the doctor's cover (generally $20 million).
3. The Run-off Cover Scheme, which provides free run-off cover for eligible doctors who retire or leave the private medical workforce permanently. The Scheme covers the cost of claims against them.
4. The incurred-but-not-reported Scheme, which covers the costs of claims from the former United Medical Protection (UMP)'s (pre June 2002) unfunded incurred but not reported liabilities.
5. The Exceptional Claims Scheme, which provides protection for doctors against personal liability for claims that exceed their insurance cover limit of $20 million.
6. The Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme which helps the contracted indemnity insurer provide affordable cover for eligible midwives. This is achieved by funding 80% of the costs of indemnity payouts over $100,000 and 100% of payouts over $2 million.
7. The Midwife Professional Indemnity Run-off Cover Scheme, which provides free run-off cover for eligible privately practising midwives who retire or leave the workforce permanently. The Scheme covers the cost of claims against them.
As a result of extensive consultation, a First Principles Review of the Government's support for medical indemnity was commissioned by the department and completed in April 2018. This Bill sets the legislative framework for implementation of the recommendations from the First Principles Review.
This Bill will create a level playing field for medical indemnity insurers. The Premium Support Subsidy Scheme is currently administered via contracts with four medical indemnity insurers. These contracts include the obligation for insurers to provide universal cover arrangements in specific jurisdictions. The effect of this is that universal cover for medical practitioners only applies to
four medical indemnity insurers. Schedule 5 of the Bill requires all medical indemnity insurers to provide universal cover to doctors. If an insurer chooses to provide medical indemnity insurance they must provide universal cover.
Following passage of the Bill, these contracts will cease on 1 July 2020 and the Premium Support Subsidy Scheme and universal cover obligations will be embedded in legislation to apply across the market. All insurers accessing the medical indemnity schemes will be subject to the same requirements, including the obligation to provide indemnity cover to any doctor who requires insurance.
By extending these arrangements to all participating insurers, the Government is ensuring that medical practitioners are protected and will be guaranteed medical indemnity insurance.
Universal cover protects doctors from being denied cover where the claims history relates to their speciality, location or patient cohort. It also reduces the risk posed by these individuals by increasing the risk loading which insurers can apply and enabling insurers to refuse cover in exceptional circumstances. Insurers will also be supported and given the flexibility to increase the risk loading based on the risk posed by a practitioner up to a 200 per cent cap of the standard premium price.
The Bill also makes a range of administrative improvements, including:
a) addresses insurer concerns relating to aggregation of claims for eligibility for High Cost Claims payments;
b) removes the 65 year age requirement to provide greater access to the Run-Off Cover Scheme (ROCS) for all practitioners that permanently retire; and
c) provides certainty that medical and midwife indemnity claims will only relate to incidents that have occurred in connection with a health service.
As part of these amendments, the Government has already invested in improving the Department of Human Services Information Technology systems. This will streamline application processes and reduce the administrative burden for insurers, moving away from manual claims processing to an automated and efficient online claims system for greater transparency. This investment will reduce re-submissions and manual handling of claims and improve the time it takes to assess claims and make payments.
The Government will also respond to a recommendation by the Australian National Audit Office that improvements be made in the monitoring of the performance of the medical indemnity schemes. An actuarial evaluation on the
stability and affordability of Australia's medical indemnity market will be commissioned, to be tabled in Parliament by 28 February 2021. This assessment is intended to provide confidence to Parliament and the general public that Government funded professional indemnity schemes remain relevant and are achieving their objectives.
In Schedule 6 of the Bill, for the purpose of providing clarity in administration, the Government will be providing for a separate allied health practitioner high cost claims schemes. The allied health schemes will mirror the existing high cost claims and the exceptional claims schemes.
Through these amendments, the Government will also be closing an anomalous gap in the medical indemnity schemes for which employed privately practising midwives are currently excluded. Until recently, a small number of employed privately practicing midwives were limited from accessing professional indemnity insurance and were unable to practice. The Bill will ensure claims against these midwives will be covered under the allied health schemes on the same basis as other medical and allied health practitioners.
In 2018, the Government conducted a Thematic Review of the medical indemnity legislation. The review recommended amendments that would reduce duplication and complexity in the medical and midwife indemnity legislative instruments and, where possible, simplify and streamline the instruments. In response, the Government agreed to consolidate eight Commonwealth Acts and 14 legislative instruments. The amendments to the legislative instruments will be tabled in Parliament after passage of this Bill.
In summary, these legislative reforms support the sustainability of the Government funded professional indemnity schemes, improve its operation, enable the discontinuation of discrete contracts between the Commonwealth and medical indemnity insurers, and reduces unnecessary regulatory burden for insurers and medical practitioners. The changes being made through the Bill will ensure that the medical and midwife indemnity legislation are fit for purpose over the long term. Patients will benefit from this proposal through a professional medical workforce that is adequately insured, creating a health care system in which access is not impacted.
After introduction of the Bill, the Government will be continuing the collaborative approach in the drafting of regulations and rules that support the medical indemnity legislation. These instruments will consolidate and simplify the current legislative instruments. The Government will be consulting further with key stakeholders on the legislative instruments in October 2019 and looks forward to working with practitioner groups and insurers on the development of these instruments.
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (SAFETY NET THRESHOLDS) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
The National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019 (the Bill) amends the National Health Act 1953 to implement the Morrison Government's election commitment to reduce the Safety Net thresholds that apply to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines.
The PBS has been providing affordable access to medicines for Australians for over sixty years and is rightly respected and valued for the high quality, cost-effective services it delivers.
The Morrison Government is committed to supporting the PBS and the patients it serves. We have a deep commitment to list every new medicine recommended by the independent expert Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
Since 2013 we have made more than 2100 new or amended medicines listings on the PBS through an additional investment of around $10.6 billion dollars.
Through the PBS, patients can access medicines that in some cases would cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollar per year for a maximum of $6.50 per script for concession card holders, or a maximum of $40.30 for non-concessional patients. Patients receive free or reduced cost scripts once the reach their safety net.
Ninety one percent of PBS scripts each year (186 million) are dispensed to concession card holders, including pensioners and low income earners, meaning they pay no more than $6.50 per script for medicines that without subsidy would cost much more than that. Twenty percent of concession
The Bill scripts (37 million scripts) are free of charge because patients have reached their safety net.
This Bill proposes amendments which will reduce the PBS Safety Net threshold amounts from 1 January 2020 for all Australian who use the PBS. This will enable PBS patients to reach the Safety Net earlier in the calendar year and provide them earlier access to free or reduced cost PBS medicines.
Specifically, the Safety Net threshold for concessional patients will be reduced from 60 PBS concessional co-payments to 48 PBS concessional co-payments. This will reduce the concessional Safety Net threshold to an estimated $316.80 in 2020. Without this proposal, the 2020 concessional safety net threshold would have risen to an estimated $396.00.
The Safety Net threshold for general patients will reduce from the 2019 level of $1550.70 to $1,486.80. Without this proposal, the 2020 general safety net threshold would have risen to $1586.40.
These changes will benefit approximately 1.6 million concessional patients and 129,000 general patients, allowing them to reach the PBS Safety Net sooner and reduce their out of pocket health costs by $80 per year for the majority of patients.
This will be particularly helpful for Australian's whose treatment requires a larger number of PBS prescription medicines every year. For example patients with chronic conditions such as heart disease, high cholesterol, arthritis, asthma, diabetes and cancer.
In particular it will assist more vulnerable Australians, such as those with a Pensioner Concession Card, Australian Seniors Health Card or a Health Care Card. It will also provide benefit for gold, white and orange card holders under the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Conclusion
The Morrison Government's commitment to the PBS is rock solid. Together with Medicare, it is a foundation of our world-class health care system.
The changes proposed in this Bill will further improve affordability of PBS medicines and I am confident they will be welcomed by all Australians.
The aim of this Government is to ensure that Australians have timely access to affordable medicines. This Bill and these changes will directly benefit the people who most need access to medically necessary, and often lifesaving, prescription medicines.
Our Government has a commitment to list all medicines on the PBS when recommended to do so by the medical experts.
We will continue to list all new medicines on the PBS, this is in contrast to Labor, who in 2011 stopped listing medicines because they could not manage the economy.
Changes to the PBS safety net were a fundamental to our commitment to the Australian people at the recent election.
Due to our strong economic management we are able to make these changes, reducing the out of pocket costs for patients who access the medicines they need through the PBS.
NEW SKILLED REGIONAL VISAS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
NEW SKILLED REGIONAL VISAS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019
The New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 (the Bill) makes consequential amendments to legislation administered by the Department of Social Services, the Department of Education and the Attorney-General's Department. Specifically, the Bill amends:
The Bill will give effect to government policy that holders of new provisional skilled regional visas, which come into effect on 16 November 2019, will have access to government services consistent with skilled permanent visa holders.
The new provisional skilled regional visas are set out in the Migration Amendment (New Skilled Regional Visas) Regulations 2019.
They are:
These new visas are part of the Australian Government's plan for Australia's future population to ease the pressure on the big capitals while supporting the growth of those smaller cities and regions that want more people. The plan includes reducing the annual migration ceiling from 190,000 to 160,000 places and setting aside 23,000 places for these new regional visas.
The visas, introduced by regulations tabled in Parliament on
2 July 2019, support businesses in regional Australia to get the skills they need quickly.
A key feature of the new visas is a requirement for regional migrants to live and work in a regional area for three years before being eligible for permanent residence.
This will encourage visa holders to remain in regional Australia, which in turn will support the local communities and enhance population growth and economies of regional parts of the country.
The amendments in this Bill will ensure that holders of the new visas have access to government services in line with the current arrangements applicable to permanent residence visas.
These changes will have a low financial impact - while ensuring that provisional skilled regional visa holders are not disadvantaged compared to holders of permanent skilled visas available for people to work in metropolitan areas.
Changes to legislation, service delivery and ICT systems - administered by the Department of Social Services, Services Australia (formerly the Department of Human Services), the Department of Education and the Attorney-General's Department - are required in order to give effect to the government's policy regarding holders of these new visas.
This would be subject to meeting the same eligibility requirements for the payments and services, and serving the same applicable waiting periods as existing permanent skilled visa holders.
These visa holders will be supporting local businesses and economies and contributing to rural and regional communities throughout Australia. I commend this Bill to the Chamber.
SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DRUG TESTING TRIAL) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
Tackling drug and alcohol abuse among welfare recipients
This Bill will establish a two year trial of drug testing for 5,000 new recipients of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (other). This Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to breaking down barriers that prevent people from getting a job.
Data shows us that substance abuse is directly impacting the ability of some job seekers to undertake job search or other activities to get them into work:
In the 2018-19 financial year, there were 5,247 occasions when a job seeker attempted to use drug or alcohol dependency as a reason for not meeting their mutual obligation requirements.
In addition, between 1 January 2018 and 31 July 2019, a total of 8,638 job seekers participated in a drug or alcohol treatment activity as part of their mutual obligation requirements.
The community has a right to expect that taxpayer-funded welfare payments are not being used to fund drug and alcohol addiction and that job seekers do all that they can to find a job, including addressing any barriers they have which prevent them from doing so.
The welfare system is designed to provide a safety net for those who find themselves out of work or unable to participate in the workforce – not to help perpetuate people's drug habits.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey shows that those who were unemployed were three times more likely to have recently used drugs such as ice and other amphetamines than those who were employed. For too long not enough has been done to try and deal with the real connection between drug abuse and unemployment.
While there are some existing mechanisms in place for identifying job seekers with substance abuse issues and assisting them to seek treatment, the data clearly shows that more needs to be done to help these people overcome their substance abuse and get into work.
The trial established by this Bill will assess the use of drug testing as a means of identifying job seekers with substance abuse issues that may be preventing them from finding a job, and supporting them to address these barriers through interventions such as Income Management and referral to appropriate treatment.
Importantly, the drug testing trial is complemented by the Government's other substance misuse measures that commenced in 2018. This includes ensuring that all job seekers are able to undertake drug or alcohol treatment as an approved activity in their Job Plan. Since the commencement of that measure on 1 January 2018, 5,047 Stream A and B job seekers have participated in a drug or alcohol treatment activity as part of their Job Plan.
Other measures to ensure job seekers with drug or alcohol abuse issues remain connected to their employment services provider were passed in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act 2018. Measures include removing exemptions from mutual obligations due to drug and alcohol use, and tightening the use of drug and alcohol issues as a reasonable excuse for not meeting obligations.
Together, these measures recognise that supporting job seekers to address their substance abuse issues through appropriate treatment is a crucial first step on the path to employment.
Supporting job seekers to take action to overcome their substance abuse will improve their chances of finding a job. This will benefit not just the job seekers themselves but also their families, the wider community and the economy.
The trial will operate in three locations: Canterbury-Bankstown in New South Wales; Logan in Queensland; and Mandurah in Western Australia.
Trial sites were chosen based on careful consideration of the available evidence and data, including:
This is not about stigmatising communities. The choice of sites wasn't about the highest levels of drug use in Australia. For the trial to be robust and successful, the Government identified locations with varying profiles and sufficient support services.
The Government has announced a dedicated treatment fund of up to $10 million to support job seekers in the drug testing trial across all three locations.
The Government has listened to feedback from the drug and alcohol treatment sector and will establish this fund to provide for additional treatment support in the trial locations where the existing state or Commonwealth services and supports are not sufficient to meet additional demand as a result of the trial.
This is in addition to more than $780 million the Government has already committed over four years from July 2018 to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol abuse on individuals, families and communities. This includes funding to support the National Ice Action Strategy to tackle the scourge of ice, especially in regional Australia.
Drug testing will coincide with Services Australia appointments and will be conducted in private by a qualified representative from a contracted third party drug testing provider. Depending on what kind of test people have been selected for, the test will either take place at a local Services Australia office or at a nearby facility.
Comprehensive rules will be set out in a legislative instrument relating to any additional illicit drugs tested for and the protocols for conducting the drug tests, including safeguards to ensure that testing is conducted appropriately and in accordance with relevant standards.
This legislative instrument will provide the flexibility to ensure that expert advice from the contracted testing provider and the drug and alcohol sector can be taken into account in developing these protocols and safeguards.
An exposure draft of the Drug Test Rules was tabled at the Senate Community Affairs and Legislation Committee's public hearing into the Welfare Reform Bill on 30 August 2017.
There will be appropriate consequences for people who deliberately miss an appointment without a reasonable excuse or refuse a drug test in order to avoid a possible positive result. If a job seeker refuses to take a drug test, having acknowledged that they may be required to do so as part of their condition of payment, their payment will be cancelled and they will not be able to re-apply for a four week period.
Job seekers who test positive to a drug test will have their payments placed on Income Management. This is designed to restrict their access to cash and limit their ability to use their payments to fund further harmful drug use, while not reducing the amount of payment they receive.
In this way, 80 per cent of a job seeker's normal payment will be quarantined to pay bills and purchase goods and the remaining 20 per cent will be paid into their regular bank account, accessible as cash to pay for discretionary items.
Job seekers who test positive will also be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days and may also be subject to further subsequent tests. This will help to identify those for whom drug abuse is an ongoing problem that may require treatment.
Job seekers who test positive to more than one drug test during the trial will be referred to a Services Australia contracted medical professional with experience in drug and alcohol treatment who will assess their particular circumstances and identify appropriate treatment or support options.
If the report from the medical professional recommends treatment, the job seeker will be required to participate in one or more treatment activities to address their substance abuse as part of their Job Plan. This could include activities such as rehabilitation or counselling.
This trial is not about penalising job seekers with drug abuse issues. It is about finding new and better ways of supporting job seekers with drug abuse issues to overcome barriers to work.
While drug testing is currently used in Australia by some employers and has also been used overseas in relation to welfare recipients, there is little comparable evidence available to tell us whether this sort of intervention would be effective in the Australian welfare context.
That is why this measure has been specifically designed as a trial – so we can assess the value of drug testing job seekers as a way of identifying those for whom drug abuse might be a barrier to work and supporting them to undertake treatment.
There will be a comprehensive evaluation of the trial to determine which aspects have been successful in addressing welfare recipients' substance abuse and barriers to employment.
Conclusion
The drug testing trial will test an innovative method of assisting people with drug abuse issues.
The Government considers it critical to do all we can to help vulnerable job seekers to address their barriers to employment so they can get and keep a job.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
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 into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION MEASURES) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill is another example of this Government's commitment to protect children in Australia and overseas from the dangers of sexual exploitation and abuse and to improve justice outcomes for survivors of child sex offences.
Sexual crimes against children destroy lives. The depraved individuals who prey on these most vulnerable members of our community for their own sexual gratification or financial gain, are too often handed short jail terms and are released into the community without any supervision, or worse still, without serving a single day in prison. Meanwhile victims are left to face the resulting trauma for the rest of their lives.
These current sentencing practices for Commonwealth child sex offences are out of step with community expectations, do not reflect the severity of the harm inflicted by these predators, and fail to protect our children and communities from further offending. This Government is committed to ensuring that the predators who commit these heinous crimes receive the sorts of sentences that the community would expect.
The Bill achieves this through reforms that target inadequacies in the existing legal framework at key points in the criminal justice process from bail and sentencing, to post-release supervision. It also provides the tools to combat emerging forms of child sexual abuse which is becoming increasingly prevalent due to technological developments.
The Bill complements a broad package of reforms already introduced by the Coalition during the 45th parliament, which strengthened the laws relating to child sexual abuse and created new protections for the community. This included tough new measures to stop child sex offenders from travelling overseas to abuse children and the introduction of Carly's law, which targets online predators who use the internet to prepare or plan to sexually abuse children. This Bill also complements the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 which the Government introduced in July 2019.
Sentencing reforms
Like many Australians, this Government is fed up with lenient sentencing practices that fail to protect the community from child sex offenders. This Bill will vastly improve justice outcomes and community safety through:
In the last financial year, 28 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders walked away with a non-custodial sentence following their convictions for child sex crimes. In the majority of cases in the last five years where offenders did receive sentences of actual imprisonment, the most common total sentence was just 18 months with six months served in custody.
Too often, child sex offenders spend insufficient time in custody to undergo treatment programs or receive any significant rehabilitation before being eligible for release back into the community. Further, upon their release, many are not subject to parole or any other form of supervision, posing a continuing threat to community safety.
This Bill addresses this unacceptable situation by introducing a sentencing presumption in favour of actual imprisonment, rebuttable only in exceptional circumstances. This will reduce the number of wholly suspended sentences being handed down for Commonwealth child sex offenders.
The Bill introduces minimum terms of five to seven years for the most serious child sex offences. This represents approximately 25 per cent of the available maximum penalty for such offences. Recidivist child sex offenders will also face minimum sentences from one to four years across the spectrum of Commonwealth child sex offences.
In all cases judges will retain complete discretion in the setting of the minimum amount of time the offender spends in custody. This will ensure they retain broad capacity to tailor sentences that foster rehabilitation and allow for suitable post-release supervision of offenders. This means that offenders should no longer be released unconditionally back into the community and will instead be supervised and subject to strict conditions—ensuring the best outcomes for community safety.
Judges will also retain discretion to deviate from the minimum terms by up to 25% each, to allow for recognition of early guilty pleas and cooperation with law enforcement. This is an important provision to ensure we do not dis-incentivise demonstrations of remorse by offenders that facilitate the administration of justice.
The Bill also contains exemptions to the minimum sentencing scheme for offenders who are under 18 when they commit an offence. Young people engaging in conduct such as 'sexting' will therefore not be caught up in mandatory imprisonment.
The existing protections in the Crimes Act for persons suffering from a mental illness or intellectual disability will still apply to people charged with child sex offenders – the Bill will just ensure that a court can make a residential treatment order, if they consider that order appropriate in the circumstances, and where available under state and territory law.
A further safeguard is that law enforcement officers and prosecutors will retain their broad discretions regarding whether or not to charge or prosecute individuals.
The introduction of mandatory sentencing complements a new presumption in favour of cumulative sentences for multiple child sex offences. This will ensure that sentences imposed adequately reflect the harm done to each victim, or the harm done by each distinct crime.
The presumption in favour of cumulative sentences can be set aside if the court is satisfied that imposing sentences concurrently or with only partial-cumulation will produce a sentence of appropriate severity. The principle of totality will also continue to apply in the sentencing exercise to guard against unjust outcomes.
Criminalising emerging forms of child sexual abuse
Disturbing new forms of child sexual abuse are on the rise due to technological developments and increased global interconnectedness. This Bill will fill gaps in the existing legal framework by introducing new offences to cover emerging forms of child sexual abuse.
An ever increasing number of online services profit from providing or facilitating the exchange and production of child abuse material. Currently, individuals behind such services can only be prosecuted where it can be proven they are also accessing child abuse material or encouraging others to do so. This Bill will introduce a new offence allowing a sentence of up to 20 years' imprisonment, to ensure the providers of such services can be held to account for facilitating access to, and encouraging the production of, child abuse material.
The Bill also introduces a new offence criminalising the grooming of third parties to make it easier to procure children to engage in sexual activity in Australia and overseas. This is necessary to combat the growing prevalence of offenders grooming adults, such as parents or carers, domestically or in developing countries via the internet, with the aim of procuring a child for sexual abuse.
The Bill also clarifies the scope of existing offences to create greater certainty regarding the types of acts covered. For example it clarifies that engaging in sexual activity with a child will include live online streaming of sexual abuse of children.
New aggravated forms of child sex offences and aggravating factors
The Government is deeply disturbed by the emerging trend where offenders inflict severe violence on children alongside sexual abuse. To ensure that this conduct is appropriately punished, the Bill will criminalise activities that aggravate particular types of sexual offending such as subjecting a child to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and causing the death of the child.
This Bill also introduces new aggravating factors that a court must take into account when sentencing an offender for a relevant offence. These would apply if the victim was under the age of 10 at the time of the offending and if multiple people were involved in the offending.
Protecting vulnerable persons
The Government remains committed to strengthening the protections afforded to child and other vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. This Bill improves justice outcomes by limiting the re-traumatisation of vulnerable witnesses by removing barriers to the admission of pre-recorded video evidence and ensuring that they are not subject to cross-examination at committal and other preliminary hearings, thus allowing them to put their best evidence forward at trial. These measures are also in line with recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Bail
Another important community protection measure introduced through this Bill is the establishment of a presumption against bail for recidivist child sex offenders or those charged with the most serious child sex offences. This presumption against bail is rebuttable and courts may still grant bail if satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances to do.
In considering bail for repeat child sex offenders or those charged with the most serious child sex offences, there is an expectation that, for the safety of the community, bail should be refused, unless the accused person can satisfy the court there are circumstances which justify their conditional release.
Post release options
At the other end of the justice process, this Bill introduces a requirement for the courts to set treatment and supervision conditions for all child sex offenders upon sentencing to prevent such offenders from being released without supervision and appropriate treatment conditions.
To better protect the community, this Bill also introduces community safety as a primary consideration when deciding whether a federal offender's parole should be revoked.
The Bill will also ensure that where an offender's parole has been revoked they can expect to serve a period of time in custody.
Conclusion
This Bill signifies this Government's commitment to addressing child sex offences that occur both domestically and overseas and to ensuring that the Australian community is protected from these heinous crimes. This Government is committed to protecting vulnerable children from these abhorrent crimes, and will be seeking to urgently pass these measures this year, to enable these inadequacies in the criminal justice system to be addressed as soon as possible.
These new measures are essential to end the all-too-common scenario of child sex offenders walking free with no supervision after conviction or following brief terms of imprisonment. Such outcomes offend community values and expectations for how crimes of this nature will be dealt with, they compound the pain and trauma of victims and they further endanger the safety of the community.
For too long, child sex offenders have been receiving inadequate sentences for their crimes that are utterly out of step with community expectations. It is time for this to change.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's report on the Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia. Today it is 40 degrees in much of Western Queensland. This is not because of climate change; it's because it's October and it's summer. It is 24 hours by bus from Cloncurry to Brisbane; it is 12 hours to Townsville. Thanks very much to the Labor government in Queensland there are reduced medical services through much of regional and remote Queensland, so people have to travel to the big cities. It is currently $683 to fly to Brisbane and $881 to fly to Townsville.
I have long believed that regulation of any industry should be outcomes based. It should be effective and it should be reasonable. There should be transparency of the clear connection between the problem to be solved and the legislative solution. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that I chair has had the opportunity to hold an inquiry into the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and, in particular, its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia. It was the findings of this report that formed part of the rationale for the introduction by CASA of the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, the CSF instrument.
The CSF instrument introduces a number of requirements for community services flights in relation to pilot experience and date of last flight, the number and type of passengers allowed on board, allowable aircraft types, aircraft maintenance schedules, flight notifications and various flight rules. At the hearings, we heard extensive evidence from numerous industry representatives, stakeholders and observers, and we used the feedback from these people to make two very clear recommendations. These were: to amend the instrument to remove the provisions for additional aeroplane maintenance requirements beyond those required already for airworthiness in the general aviation sector; and, second, to further amend the instrument to clarify what constitutes 'operating crew' for community service flights, particularly as it relates to additional pilots and mentoring.
The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee believe both these reforms would strike the right balance between safety, ease of implementation and the benefit of a service that does so much good for so many people, thanks to the generosity of volunteer pilots in our vast nation. Despite these recommendations, CASA, having indicated it will accept the second recommendation to provide further clarity on the mentorship, has made no changes to the words of the instrument in this regard. But, more importantly, CASA has not accepted the unanimous recommendations of the committee to reject the additional maintenance requirement, which, once again, adds cost to an increasingly unfinancial sector. The requirement for the additional maintenance was not able to be demonstrated by CASA either in its written submission or when appearing before the committee. Indeed, the idea that this was only a small increase to costs fundamentally demonstrates the extraordinary disconnection between this regulating body and the reality of life and services available in regional, rural and remote Australia—the very places that rely on Angel Flight. In taking this course of action, CASA doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration and consultation and shows a refusal to accept commonsense reform.
This lack of understanding of the gradual and relentless increase in cost and regulation within the aviation industry with no demonstrable link to safety improvement other than a precautionary principle concerns me enormously, as a resident of this huge outback country. We could be much better served if only aviation were affordable for general aviation and charter businesses.
CASA's proposed regulatory changes would not have prevented the June 2017 accident and, with no reference to additional maintenance requirements in the ATSB report, it is hard to understand to what end CASA had made the change, not to mention the fact that CASA's approach risks driving pilots out of the Angel Flight service, which is so critical to Australians living in rural and remote areas. Without pilots, people with chronic and serious conditions face driving many hours to obtain treatment, or face the extreme costs of regional airfares. It is painfully apparent that CASA imposes regulation simply for the sake of it.
Everyone elected to this place comes with a responsibility to represent the communities that sent them here. Those communities have an expectation that we will support the standards that they expect—the standards of transparency and common sense—and they expect government to direct these independent bodies to do their will. Of course, that is not possible. These independent statutory bodies have taken on a life of their own, but I am here to tell you that I could not and will not accept a report that so clearly and in depth examines the evidence and the challenges for regional and remote Australia and the challenges to the aviation industry and stands by while CASA, once again, imposes maintenance requirements that are unreasonable, costly and, once again, seek to strangle opportunity and aviation in this country.
You can only begin to imagine what Bert Hinkler, Charles Kingsford Smith, John Flynn and all the other great aviators of this land would think if they came back now and saw what we have done to our aviation industry. There are not only aspects of practical and reasonableness in opposing this instrument but also humanitarian aspects. Regulations need to be strict, but not so strict as to strangle, and I believe Angel Flight will be strangled by these proposals. So it is for this reason that I did support the disallowance motion moved by Senator Rex Patrick. This is not voting against government legislation; this is voting against an instrument that was created by an independent statutory authority that is slowly crippling our aviation industry.
I'd also like to speak to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's report in support of Angel Flight and the service that they provide to so many rural and regional families across this country, including the support that they provided to my own family for a number of years.
When my son was diagnosed with autism back in 2012, at that stage—pre the NDIS—we were reliant on assistance through state government. It took 12 months for the state government to get in contact with us in Moree to see how they may be able to offer assistance to my son through disability support programs. Thankfully we had not waited 12 months to help our son, because the key with autism is intensive and early intervention—the key to that being 'early'. Unfortunately, many families at that point in time were forced to wait.
We had endeavoured to start on a very good, high-quality early intervention program out of Sydney, but that was requiring us to travel to Sydney every month—my son, myself and, at times, therapists who we were training to conduct the in-home element of the program. The cost, when it was just my son and me, was often up to $2,000 return from Moree to Sydney because of the $500 per person each way that was required to be paid. As you can imagine, $24,000 a year that is not even for the therapy, let alone accommodation and other costs while you're in Sydney for four to five days a month, is not sustainable for many families. It certainly wasn't sustainable for us for a very long period of time.
Facetiously suggesting to the state government that they might be able to help fund my son's program, and them not being able to do that, their suggestion was that they could offer a referral to Angel Flight. Angel Flight was an absolute godsend to our family. It was the only service that we were able to access that we did not have to personally fund. The insinuation that I have heard over the last couple of months in what would appear to be an almost determined act by CASA over a sustained period of time to somehow strangle this absolutely vital community service, for reasons that are absolutely beyond me, that they are trying to take away a service that provides a vital lifeline for families is just absolutely incomprehensible. And the most offensive part that I have heard is the suggestion that somehow rural and regional families do not understand that these flights are being conducted by non-commercial pilots. I can assure you that we understand that. Angel Flight does an exceptional job in educating the people who use the service. We are spoken to by Angel Flight and we are given lots and lots of information to read. We are signing pieces of paper, not only when we first use the service but every time we use it. We are aware that we will be flying in various types of aircraft. We had one flight in a wonderful, brand new, incredibly impressive aircraft that had just been purchased by the managing partner of a very large consulting firm. We also had trips in much less salubrious, smaller aircraft, in which we had a much less-comfortable flight to Moree, but these flights were equally gratefully received by my family and particularly by my son and I.
It is offensive to suggest that people in rural and regional communities are somehow unable to make an educated decision about using the service. Whilst any accident that results in the death of anybody is tragic, the fact of the matter is that there are more deaths on our roads than have ever been caused in accidents by this service, and we do not see cries to shut down the transport via road of people with chronic illnesses or those requiring care and access to therapy. People need to be able to access these services. At one stage we flew on a quite large plane from Moree via Brewarrina with a number of families, including people who were suffering from breast cancer who could not make the trip via road. This was a vital service for helping these people to continue their lives and prolong their lives for as long as possible. So it is incredibly important that Angel Flight receives the support it can get and that it is not overly burdened by regulation, such that it is put in a position where it is unable to provide this service, which is so vital to so many families across rural and regional Australia.
I particularly would like to commend Senator Rex Patrick, Senator Susan McDonald and Senator Slade Brockman. All of us share a passion for this service, and we appreciate the important role that it plays within the communities we live in and represent. We understand the important work that it does. I, for one, wish Angel Flight a very long existence. To all the families currently utilising the service, I hope you don't need it for very much longer, but for the families that may require it in future, I hope the service is there for you far into the future.
I too rise to take note of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. I acknowledge, as Senator Hughes did, all those who participated in the inquiry. I particularly would like to thank the secretariat for their work on the inquiry. I was a full member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee when the inquiry on the promulgation of the particular regulations we're talking about kicked off. Senator Patrick, Senator O'Sullivan—who has now left us—and I did have some concerns about those regulations. These concerns led us through the inquiry, which was very ably chaired by Senator McDonald, having done so as a relatively new senator. It was probably a difficult issue, and I acknowledge and thank her for her chairing of the inquiry hearings.
As Senator Patrick mentioned earlier today, I did have some concerns about the ATSB report. You cannot blame government agencies for the way that their reporting is sometimes sensationalised in the media—for example, talking about the flights of Angel Flight being seven times more dangerous. Unfortunately, it was made easy for the media to come up with those very inflammatory headlines, because of the report the ATSB produced. I still remain concerned with the fact that their principal conclusion was based on two data points, separated by six years, over a 10-year period. I find it very difficult to believe that you can draw statistically significant conclusions from such a dataset. It worries me when that information is then used by a large number of media outlets to paint a particular view of the risks, because these risks, as Senator Hughes and Senator McDonald have so ably outlined, are risks that are weighed up by people living in very remote parts of Australia.
If you live in Newdegate, in my home state, you've got a 1,800-kilometre round trip to Perth if you need to see a specialist, if you need any particularly invasive hospital care or regular treatments for things such as cancer. If you live in Cue, you've got a 1,300-kilometre round trip. But these are not on major highways; they are on country roads. Anyone who's driven on country roads or anyone who has even looked at the statistics for driving on country roads knows that there is a level of risk involved in taking those long trips on those country roads, of durations of sometimes 10 hours or more. Yes, there is risk involved in flying in light aircraft; there is no doubt about that. I think everyone in Australia, particularly everyone in the bush, knows that there are risks involved in flying in light aircraft. But to put the idea out there that somehow the statistics we use are an accurate portrait of what those risks are—I don't think that is fair or reasonable.
I didn't disagree with all the regulations. In fact—although I don't want to put words into the mouths of others—I believe that most of us on the committee actually supported the majority of the regulation that was put forward, in particular the requirements for pilots to have a certain level of experience, competence and time in the particular aircraft, and felt that they were sensible changes that would seem, on the face of it, to deliver a safety benefit. However, the one I found particularly difficult to accept—and this is the one that was highlighted in the committee's report—was the requirement for an additional level of aeroplane maintenance. If I'm the owner of a private aircraft and that aircraft is safe enough for me to take my friends up in, is safe enough for me to take my children up in, has met the requirements of being considered a safe aircraft for the purpose of general aviation in Australia, then I see no reason to add on to that a further maintenance requirement that risks more people leaving general aviation.
All of us in this place who have anything to do with the bush spend some time in light aircraft. All of us in this place who have an interest in rural and regional affairs spend some time in light aircraft, because there is just no other way of getting around rural and regional Australia. My experience, talking to GA operators and GA pilots throughout Western Australia, is that that part of the industry feels under significant pressure from regulations such as these. Additional maintenance requirements are not something to just be shrugged off. Pilots take them seriously—they have to be taken seriously. So, additional maintenance requirements beyond the requirements for any planes in the general aviation sector did not seem to me to be warranted. However, as I've already stated, I agreed with large parts of the regulation.
As such, I did not support Senator Patrick's disallowance. It's a very blunt instrument, a disallowance. Unfortunately, it means you knock out everything. You literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is something where I do have a great deal of concern both for the Angel Flight pilots—the community flight pilots—and for that sector. Giving rural and regional Australians access to those services is very important, and I will continue to monitor this area very closely and look to see whether the regulations as promulgated have a negative impact on that sector.
I rise to take note of the report. I wish to congratulate Senators McDonald, Hughes and Brockman for their statements. Senator McDonald, as the chair of the committee, clearly articulated how the committee felt in relation to the ATSB report and, indeed, the instrument. In her speech she talked of an instrument that imposes maintenance requirements that are unnecessary and of how these are slowly crippling our aviation industry. Senator McDonald, with great courage, crossed the floor this afternoon to support the disallowance. Her standing has certainly gone up significantly in my mind. I often criticise but I'm never afraid to talk about it when I think people have stood up and said something really sensible. I'm not a party to government in any way, shape or form; I just call it as it is.
Moving to Senator Hughes: she spoke from the heart. She's someone who has used Angel Flight. She has talked to me privately and said—and I hope she doesn't mind that I share this—it was a great saviour for her. I know that she's so very grateful for the service that Angel Flight provides. I was with her up in Papua New Guinea, with Save the Children, and she spent some amount of time talking about what they did for her family.
Senator Brockman spoke very sensibly on his analysis of the ATSB report. Very correctly, he indicated that there were many sensible things in the regulation. Indeed, I wasn't opposing everything that was in the regulation. I was basically very concerned about the mentoring arrangements, although I accept what has been said in the chamber tonight, which is that that may well be adjusted. But, certainly, in relation to maintenance, I do have a problem. He's still monotone—but very sensible!—and I thank him for his contribution in relation to the report.
The role of senators is one of leadership; and we shouldn't just accept that, because CASA say something, we need to back CASA. We need to look at things that CASA present to this chamber and analyse them. We need to look at them and apply judgement on what it is that they have to say. We shouldn't simply tick things because CASA say, 'This is the case,' and because we need to support CASA as people have to have confidence in CASA. We should call them out when things are wrong. In that respect, the government—and I'm referring not to the senators who have spoken tonight but the government—has been weak. Indeed, I'm going to be critical of the opposition. I think the opposition is weak. I exclude Senator Sterle, who I note abstained from the vote. He abstained in clear view of everyone. It is not acceptable for us to simply tick and flick things that come through this place, certainly when they are going to have a very detrimental effect on a most valuable service to regional Australia.
It is clear, there is no question, it is undisputed, it is undoubtable that CASA has erred in respect of this particular instrument. I might say, and I say this in a considered manner, that Mr Carmody has exercised poor judgement, and it's my view that, in the context of all of the regulation that has been imposed upon CASA and in respect of this fundamentally flawed instrument—and, to tap into what Senator Brockman said, there are only certain aspects of this instrument that are flawed, particularly with respect to maintenance—his tenure at the head of CASA must be reconsidered.
Question agreed to.
I rise, in the metaphorical sense, to speak to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report relating to the Hong Kong and Indonesian free trade agreements. Just a few days ago, China's President Xi said of Hong Kong protesters, 'Anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bodies and shattered bones.' This follows months of pro-democracy protests where the people of Hong Kong have been calling for universal suffrage and investigations into police violence, things that we here in Australia take for granted in their absence. They have faced: antidemocratic emergency powers to ban face masks; rivers of tear gas; bullets from police; and Chinese troops gathering on their borders—and still they have walked the streets. What is the Australian government's response to the crushing of dissent and to President Xi's threats? It is to go on with business as usual. Indeed, there have been greater shows of solidarity with the democratic protesters in Hong Kong emanating from the National Basketball Association of the United States than there have been from the Australian government.
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has duly examined the proposed free trade agreement with Hong Kong and decided that everything should proceed as per usual. There is nothing to see here, or so we are told by the major parties. And I might make this very explicit for the chamber: this is a position supported by the Labor Party. That is not the view of the Australian Greens. Of course the Australian government should not consider any free trade agreement while protesters are being violently suppressed. This should go without saying. We in the Greens have listened to the concerns of the Hong Kong community here in Australia and the views of the union movement. As the ACTU said in its submission to the inquiry:
It is important that we show solidarity with the protestors and our support for human rights, civil society and the rule of law in Hong Kong before we decide how to proceed with the FTA.
We in the Greens absolutely do not buy the argument made by the coalition and the ALP that this agreement will strengthen Hong Kong's status under the 'one country, two systems' procedures. Here is the perfect opportunity for the government to send a clear message to the Chinese government and the Hong Kong authorities. We have the opportunity to back up our words of concern with actual actions and show that repression will not be tolerated.
Let me move also to the proposed Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Aside from the myriad concerns around the role of investor-state dispute clauses and labour market access—where the ALP have again folded at the first sign of a political challenge—there is the issue of the appalling human rights abuses currently occurring in West Papua. Just today I've read reports of five bodies found in the highlands of West Papua, allegedly victims of an attack by the Indonesian military. Of course, it is not easy to know for sure what has happened, because journalists and human rights observers have been forbidden from accessing the region. We have seen horrendous bloodshed in West Papua in recent months. Scores have been killed, perhaps many more. In just one example, Indonesian security forces opened fire on an antiracism rally of high school students in Wamena. The protesters were sick of being called monkeys. This was their crime.
We should be condemning the actions of the Indonesian government and its security forces. We absolutely should not be training them. We should be requesting access for our diplomats instead of not wanting to cause a fuss. And, of course, while our neighbours are subject to ruthless and violent occupation, we shouldn't be ratifying a shoddy free trade agreement that is strongly opposed by, I might add, the very same unions that the Labor Party claims to be the voice for in this place. I will flag here tonight that, when the implementation of legislation for these two agreements makes its way to the chamber in the next session, I and the Greens will be moving and voting in support of amendments which seek to increase human rights measures, remove the toxic ISDS provisions which enable corporations to sue our democracy if we threaten their profit and remove the horrendous and deeply worrying aspects in relation to the undermining of the labour market here in Australia.
You would imagine that these are clauses that would find support within the Labor Party. However, given the caucus of cowardice that they convened earlier today to consider these matters, I wonder whether they will indeed be supported. We will have to wait and see. For now, I flag their coming introduction. I thank the chamber for its time.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I want to speak briefly on the Auditor-General's report on the design and governance of the childcare package that was published on 30 September 2019. Early childhood education is an essential support for working parents, who rely on the dedication of educators around the nation to teach and nurture their children while they go to work. An integral component of learning for infants, toddlers and young children lies in the social and emotional foundation on which all future education is built. It is a multibillion dollar industry underpinned by a combination of parent fees and Commonwealth fee assistance. I note for the record that the Auditor-General has found that the Department of Education's design and governance of the government's childcare reforms was largely effective. The centrepiece of those reforms combined two previous fee system payments—the childcare rebate and the childcare benefit—into a single subsidy.
When it was announced back in May 2015, the coalition government praised themselves on designing a set of reforms that created a simple system and made early childhood education more affordable for parents. However, the minister at the time, Simon Birmingham, issued a media release claiming the reforms would put downward pressure on early education fees. Unfortunately, in my home state of Victoria—and, in particular, in country Victoria—the childcare reforms that commenced on 2 July last year are neither simple nor affordable. And the fees are well and truly up, despite the government's claims. The reality is that the government designed a system that has increased the compliance burden on families and early education and care providers. Rather than it being more affordable, parents are paying a national average of 4.9 per cent more today than they were at this time last year. This is clearly shown in the latest quarterly update of childcare data from the department of education released just a few weeks ago. The data also shows that families in rural Victoria have had to contend with fee increases well above the national average—up to 15 per cent in some regions. What the Auditor-General's report does not show is that, more than a year in, the government's new childcare system has completely failed at putting downward pressure on fees—and families in country Victoria are paying a very high price.
On this side of the chamber, Labor understands how much of an impost the rise in childcare fees poses to families. That's why we took an ambitious early childcare plan to the last election. That plan included real action to address fee increases imposed on families, like those that we are seeing right now in rural and regional Victoria. We built our plan because we know that parents are struggling with the cost of early childhood education. Fees have increased by 30 per cent since the Liberal-National government was first elected six years ago. Parents certainly cannot afford to pay any more, but nor can they afford to go without child care. That means families, particularly in rural and regional Victoria, are paying through the nose for early childhood education. Families in country Victoria need this government to act now to ensure early education and care is affordable, accessible and of the highest quality.
Question agreed to.
Senate adjourned at 18:37