The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute, as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today's Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 7 February 2018, from 9.40 am.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 7 February 2018, from 4 pm.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate—
Thursday, 8 February 2018, from 10 am.
Thursday, 15 February 2018, from 10 am.
private briefings during the sittings of the Senate—
Thursday, 8 February 2018, from 10.10 am and from 5.30 pm.
Thursday, 15 February 2018, from 10.10 am.
public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 15 February 2018, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into Antarctica.
Standing Committee of Privileges—private briefing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 8 February 2018, from 10 am.
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, from 9.30 am—
Wednesday, 7 February 2018.
Wednesday, 14 February 2018.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
The CHAIR (12:02): The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:02): It is my pleasure to advise the Senate that, since we last met, during the last sitting week before Christmas, some more work has been done across the chamber in relation to this important bill. We do believe that there is now majority support for the bill in the Senate, even if former Senator Lambie were still here and voting against the bill. Furthermore, noting the proposal of the opposition to defer consideration of this bill until such time as a replacement for former Senator Lambie has joined the Senate, I'm also pleased to advise the Senate that the government and the opposition have had some further discussions in relation to the progression of this bill.
I'm pleased to be able to inform the Senate that we've reached agreement and that bill can proceed now, subject to certain amendments which we understand the opposition will move, which the government has indicated we will support. May I place on the record my thanks and appreciation for the way the shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon, has approached this matter by cooperating and working constructively with the government.
The government will support amendments which make the operating mandate for the Regional Investment Corporation a disallowable instrument. We will also support amendments that will make the rules and eligibility criteria for farm business, water loans and financial assistance disallowable instruments. We will also support amendments which require that ministerial directions and agreements regarding water infrastructure projects be tabled in each house of parliament within 15 days, after a final agreement has been received by the minister for agriculture. We will also, in a similar vein, support amendments which require that a copy of any agreement or ministerial direction, as above, must also be published on the internet within 30 days, after its receipt by the minister.
The location of the Regional Investment Corporation will be determined by a recommendation of the board, although it's of course well understood that the government's expectation is that the Regional Investment Corporation will be established in Orange. Finally, we will be supporting an amendment which requires the CEO of the Regional Investment Corporation to provide written notice to the board of any disclosure under section 20 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which deals with the duty to disclose interests. So, again I thank all those in the chamber who have engaged with the government. I know that Senator Leyonhjelm has also had some constructive engagement with the minister for agriculture, Mr Littleproud. We are very appreciative of the way the chamber has engaged with us. With the indications that the government will support these amendments, I hope that we can secure a speedy passage of the legislation.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:04): I seek leave to move the amendments on sheet 8362 together.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, I'm not sure they have been circulated.
Senator CAROL BROWN: They were in the process of being circulated, I believe.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As you're speaking? We don't have them before us, but, go on—keep going.
Leave granted.
Senator CAROL BROWN: I move:
(1) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 6 to 9), omit the note, substitute:
Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the directions (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).
(2) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a direction forming part of the Operating Mandate.
(3) Clause 12, page 11 (before line 16), before subclause (4), insert:
(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3), any terms and conditions to be included in an agreement must be in accordance with the rules.
(3D) However, a failure to comply with subsection (3C) does not affect the validity of a particular term or condition included in an agreement.
(4) Clause 12, page 11 (lines 19 to 21), subclause (5) (including the heading), to be opposed.
(5) Clause 12, page 11 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:
(5) The rules must prescribe, in relation to agreements to be entered into under subsection (3):
(a) the terms and conditions, or the kinds of terms and conditions, that may be included in an agreement; and
(b) the matters the Corporation must consider in specifying terms and conditions to be included in an agreement.
(6) Page 12 (after line 23), at the end of Part 2, add:
13A Tabling of water infrastructure project agreements etc.
(1) The Corporation must give the Agriculture Minister a copy of an agreement entered into under subsection 12(3).
(2) The Agriculture Minister must cause:
(a) a copy of the agreement; and
(b) any direction given under subsection 12(3) relating to the agreement;
to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving a copy of the agreement.
(3) The Agriculture Minister must cause a copy of the documents mentioned in subsection (2) to be published on the internet within 30 days of the Minister receiving the copy of the agreement.
(7) Page 23 (after line 10), after clause 41, insert:
41A Disclosure of interests
(1) The CEO must give written notice to the Board of any disclosure made by the CEO under section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with the duty to disclose interests).
(2) Subsection (1) applies in addition to any rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
(3) For the purposes of this Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the CEO is taken not to have complied with section 29 of that Act if the CEO does not comply with subsection (1) of this section.
I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution just a moment ago, and I also thank the government for engaging with Labor on the amendments. But it is important, I think, to again reiterate that the Regional Investment Corporation is a poor piece of public policy. It was driven by politics, rather than the interests of our farmers. How else would you explain the decision to locate it in Orange, the place where the National Party lost a local seat for the first time in 69 years? The former agricultural minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, wants to spend $28 million of taxpayers' money to administer loans already administered by the states. He has offered no acceptable rationale other than to criticise the states. At the same time we know that he is asking the states how to do the job. We know that. We've heard that in contributions last year on this bill.
The fact that the RIC is just a shocking pork barrel is not our only concern. There are a number of governance deficiencies in this bill. The lack of transparency and accountability should be of concern to every senator. They were certainly matters of concern to the Senate's Scrutiny of Bills Committee. These deficiencies are not drafting errors; they are a deliberate attempt to keep secret the work of the RIC and to give the minister extraordinary powers to maximise the pork-barrelling opportunities. As I said last year when we were first debating this bill, Labor remains opposed to the RIC and we will remain opposed while ever the government is unable to provide a cogent reason for its establishment. But we are pleased by Minister Cormann's statements here today. We are pleased the government has finally been dragged into at least accepting some of the amendments which address some of the governance, accountability and transparency issues.
Senators need to be reminded that most of these amendments were put to the Senate last year. They were rejected by the government at that time but lost very narrowly—in one case, on a tied vote. The main effect of the amendments is to allow the parliament to scrutinise and monitor the ministerial direction. This will reduce further political exploitation of the RIC. The RIC's mandate will be disallowable, as will set rules and criteria. The location of the RIC will now be based on a recommendation from the RIC board, rather than ministerial edict. Of course, the board will be appointed by the minister, which, sadly, softens the impact of the measure. However, we believe it has the potential to bring some proper public guidance to the process, and we will put pressure on the board to justify its choice. We know that no other regional areas were given the opportunity to bid for this agency, and the future board should take this into account. Further, agreements entered into with state governments will, at the appropriate time, be made available to the parliament. Finally, the CEO of the RIC will now be required to declare any pecuniary interest. This is surely standard and good practice. The case for the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on a new Regional Investment Corporation has not been established, and Labor continues to reject what we believe is a political stunt, but we are pleased that, if this bill does pass, people can at least have faith in its governance arrangements and that there are a few safeguards against the political abuse of the new entity.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:10): I'm interested to hear of the amendments and the government's agreement to them, and I want to ask one question about that. But before doing that: I don't always agree with everything Mr Joyce proposes, but I do very much appreciate and support his actions in moving some obvious government agencies out of Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne and putting them into rural communities. There has been a lot of criticism of Mr Joyce in relation to the veterinary authority moving. I applaud that, and I applaud the fact that this organisation is to have its headquarters, apparently, in Orange.
I do sound a note of warning, of course, that, where government ministers are doing this, they shouldn't send them all to New South Wales. There are other states of the Commonwealth where these agencies could well be situated. With modern communications and good internet these days—which you're getting under a government that understands the NBN and is trying to make it as good as Labor promised but never had any ability to deliver—you really don't need to live in the next door office building in Canberra to be able to properly administer particular government departments and, particularly, agencies. I applaud Mr Joyce's and, indeed, the government's approach of moving some of the obvious ones; not every one could go out into the country.
I'm disappointed that Border Force hasn't been moved up into the north of Queensland or the north of Australia where some of its operations are principally organised. Some of the activities of that organisation haven't been agreed to be put there, as I've been campaigning for for some time. But I do applaud the government doing this, and I again make the point that with modern communications you don't have to sit in the next door building in Canberra to be able to properly administer the Public Service; you can spread them out into the country. In fact, I suspect that very few public servants these days speak to each other; they usually get on the internet and email each other when they want to pass on some communications. So, that bit I do applaud but with the warning that they shouldn't all be set up in New South Wales and Victoria. There are other states of the Commonwealth where, with communications, this could happen.
There is a question that I want to ask the minister. It seems to me that there are similarities between this organisation and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I am furious that Australia has let itself into this situation with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The federal government set up a policy to develop Northern Australia; it promised it at two elections. The people of Australia supported the coalition because of its proposals to develop the north. Part of the proposal was that there would be an independent board that would deal with applications. An independent board, not a government or a politician, would deal with these applications. The board was a very good board, I think, of people with expertise in business and in the work that that organisation would do. The Commonwealth government made, as an election promise, certain commitments. The Commonwealth government provided the money, and then we find a state Labor government that has a different policy approach to things completely curtailing, completely abjuring and completely abrogating the Commonwealth government's policy, election promises and commitments.
How can that possibly be good for Australia? People elected us. They say to us, 'You promised to do this. Why aren't you doing it?' It is because—and I know they keep saying it's the Constitution—in the way we set that up, we had to pass the money through the states and we gave them some ability to veto a Commonwealth government policy and election commitment of the coalition. Here is a state government that has nothing to do with it not putting a cent into it and not contributing anything, except raw political deals with the Greens political party to stop the Adani project no matter what. It has nothing to do with the state government. The board of NAIF is not an environmental tick-off agency. In fact—and I keep repeating this—the Queensland Labor government actually ticked off the Adani project in every aspect. The Queensland Labor government approved Adani for its environmental requirements. The Commonwealth government, the department of the environment and all the bureaucrats we have there looking at the EPBC Act went through the lot of it. They ticked it off after a rigorous consultation process. In fact, on top of those two environmental agencies, all those bureaucrats and all those experts in the environment area dealing with it—in addition to that—the High Court's had a chop at it as well. There have been several Federal Court and High Court decisions in relation to environmental matters. They've all been dealt with. So it should go ahead. It should be left to the board to decide if this is the sort of business proposition that should be supported. But, no! The board are being targeted—personally, I might say—by activists and accused of being environmental vandals. It's got nothing to do with the board of NAIF. The NAIF board is a bankers board, not an environmental board. The people responsible for the environment—the Queensland government, the Commonwealth government and the courts—have all looked at it and determined it.
It just disturbs me that a sovereign government that is elected on a particular policy cannot get that policy implemented simply because a state government of a different political persuasion, in this case the Labor Party doing deals with the Greens political party, is stopping a Commonwealth initiative. That is wrong and it should not happen in the case of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.
My question to the minister is this. In this instance, I must confess I haven't closely studied the Regional Investment Corporation and the details as much as I did with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, but I want to make sure that, in agreeing to the amendments put forward by Labor, we are not again giving state governments, be they Liberal state governments in New South Wales or Labor state governments in Queensland, the ability to override Commonwealth policy and to abrogate coalition election commitments which the people of Australia supported and expect to be dealt with and to be honoured. Can I be assured that, in this case, by accepting the amendments proposed by Labor, we are not repeating that folly of giving other governments—who have nothing to do with it, are not putting in the money and are not promoting a particular policy approach—that ability to then abrogate and avoid and overturn the policies and commitments of an elected federal government?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:20): I can reassure Senator Macdonald that none of the amendments that the government is supporting and which were moved by the opposition today have that effect. These are essentially amendments that go to the capacity of the parliament to scrutinise, and, if considered appropriate, disallow certain rules and the operating mandate, though we obviously don't expect that the Senate will, and we hope that it won't, be inclined that way. I understand the point, and essentially all of the other amendments go to transparency and to disclosure requirements. So none of it relates to the rights or the powers of a state to stop anything that the Commonwealth would want to initiate from getting ahead.
Let me make this general point. Senator Macdonald raises the NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Obviously we were very disappointed when the Queensland Labor government made the decision they did in relation to an important piece of rail infrastructure, which was designed to have opened up the Galilee Basin as the next frontier of coal production and exports, and, of course, the Adani project, being a very substantial project which, when it is built, will create many thousands of jobs, which we want to see happen. When it comes to the development of infrastructure, the Commonwealth of course has to work with relevant state and territory governments about infrastructure in their respective jurisdictions, which is why the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was set up the way it was. We still hope that this project will proceed. We strongly support the Adani project. We strongly support the need for infrastructure to open up the Galilee Basin as a coal-producing and exporting region across Australia. We very much hope that the billions and billions of dollars of investment that are ready to be deployed can be deployed, and that the thousands and thousands of jobs can be generated. But, as far as the specific amendments in front of the chair are concerned, which the government has indicated we will support, none of them go to the rights of states to stop Commonwealth initiatives when it comes to infrastructure.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:22): I appreciate the minister's assurance in that regard. I must say that, at a recent inquiry into NAIF set up by the Senate, by the Labor Party and the Greens, it was raised that there were conflicts of interest which were unresolved. Again, I understand that, under the CAC Act and other Commonwealth legislation—and, indeed, under the NAIF's own legislation—there are the natural requirements for disclosure where there are conflicts of interest and for avoiding even participating in discussions or votes where that occurs. So I just hope that these amendments don't take that disclosure obligation, or that avoidance of any involvement in anything in which a board member may have a conflict of interest, any further.
I won't pursue this further, except to say—just returning to the Adani issue—that not only were all the environmental approvals given, not only did this go to the Federal Court and the High Court any number of times and not only hasn't the NAIF board been able to do its job because of the intervention of the Queensland government—which has absolutely nothing to do with it—but also, more importantly, in this inquiry there were a number of contributors at the Darwin hearing who spoke about the importance of Indigenous involvement, in that instance in the development of Northern Australia, and how it was important to get Indigenous people involved.
I know in the Adani case the local Indigenous population, by I think a majority of about 98 per cent, supported this. Why did they support it? It is because they wanted jobs for themselves and their children. They wanted to be able to employ their children on their own lands. Yet, notwithstanding that, the Greens political party and now the Labor Party government in Queensland—and, indeed, it seems Mr Shorten and the federal Labor Party with their sop to voters in Batman—have also ignored the wishes of the local Indigenous people who wanted that project because it provides jobs for them.
Clearly you hear a lot of bleating from the Greens and the Labor Party about Indigenous employment, but when there is a real opportunity for Indigenous employment, as there is with the railway line construction in Central and North Queensland, the Labor Party, rolling over to the Greens political party again, simply ignore the wishes of Indigenous people. It seems that Mr Shorten, in his determination to fight with his Green mates in Batman and to promise the people of Batman anything that the Greens will promise, is saying, 'We don't give a stuff about Indigenous employment.' I suspect there are not a lot of Indigenous people in Batman, so that wouldn't be an issue in that particular electorate. It is in Central Queensland. It is in North Queensland. It is in northern Australia, where we are trying to get development that will assist Indigenous people into real jobs. What do we get? We get the Queensland Labor government rolling over to the Greens who keep them in power in Queensland. Now in Batman, because Mr Shorten has the fight of his life on with his former allies in the Greens political party, they will both promise anything they need to win the latte set, completely ignoring the wishes of Indigenous people who want real jobs in northern Australia.
And so, Minister, I won't delay the passage of this legislation anymore. Suffice it to say that we have your assurances that the requirements on accountability and conflicts of interest are not outrageous. They are part of the normal approach. We expect all government agencies, all public servants, all minister and all parliamentarians to disclose and, where they do have a conflict of interest, to remove themselves from any discussion that relates to the subject matter before the board.
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (12:27): This is not my first speech. I rise to speak strongly in support of the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. This bill will establish a Regional Investment Corporation to be the single delivery agency for the Commonwealth's Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. A major part of these loans is about managing drought. Successive governments have failed in their duty to drought-proof Australia. In my own state of Queensland, every year millions of litres of fresh water are allowed to flow to the sea which could easily have been used to water hundreds of thousands of acres of parched inland areas. Simply capturing water that is currently wasted by being allowed to flow out to sea could be used to drought-proof many hundreds of sheep and cattle properties, as could lowering power costs through hydroelectric schemes and opening up central barren land and cultivating it, in the process creating thousands of jobs. The economic benefits to Australia of the nation-building Bradfield Scheme, for example, would be enjoyed by many generations to come. The Romans 2,300 years ago, for instance, were moving water to irrigate their land, but we haven't done a very good job of irrigating ours.
Since 2013 and 2014, the Commonwealth has been offering concessional loans under the government's Farm Business Concessional Loans program to farm businesses to help them through difficult times and to encourage infrastructure and economic development. To date, over $680 million in loans has been approved to 1,270 farm businesses. Until now, these concessional loans were delivered through the states. However, this not only is ineffective but also results in a lack of consistency in loan delivery, as individual state government policies reflect their own agendas. More importantly, the state governments are currently pocketing fees of between 2.5 per cent and eight per cent, which is money that would otherwise have been provided to the farm businesses. There are expensive administration costs involved in having a state-administered fund, and having to undertake separate negotiations with each state makes the operation of the fund protracted and cumbersome.
By replacing this process with the Commonwealth Regional Investment Corporation, the sticky-fingered Labor states will be removed from involvement and the Commonwealth will be able to allocate its own money to farmers in need, rather than capital city bureaucrats. In addition, the program will have broader powers compared with the bodies administered by the states, which currently handle the funds, because the Commonwealth has broader constitutional powers, including trade and commerce and external affairs.
Finally, the corporation will also administer the government's National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. The corporation's administration of the loan facility will provide further incentive for states and territories to fast-track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure projects. This is particularly important in my state of Queensland, in which successive Labor state governments have appeared to be allergic to dam building. Billions that should have been earmarked for dam-building projects, including raising the wall of the Burdekin dam, building Hells Gates dam, building the Rookwood Weir and building the Wolffdene dam, has instead been frittered away on useless Tugun desalination plant and the South-East Queensland Water Grid water shell game—billions of dollars spent that added not one drop of additional water for irrigation and domestic use.
Thanks to the RIC bill, $2 billion worth of concessional loans have been made available for states and territories to deliver much-needed water infrastructure. Hopefully, this will entice even the Queensland government to stop constructing random tram lines on the Gold Coast and unnecessary tunnels under the Brisbane River and finally build the additional water storage Queensland needs.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:32): The Greens are pleased to hear of the negotiations that have occurred since we last were discussing the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, as some measures are going to increase elements of transparency and accountability as to how the Regional Investment Corporation is run. But, in doing these negotiations, the government's agreement to these amendments—we're told they're about to agree to these amendments, which are essentially the same amendments that they rejected last year—just highlights the political nature of the whole Regional Investment Corporation.
The Regional Investment Corporation was a political invention. It was created to shore up government support in an area of Australia where their stocks were low. It was created to be able to direct money to particular areas where it was going to have the most political gain—and, fundamentally, the Regional Investment Corporation is still going to be able to do that. The government is going to agree to these measures that are improving accountability—and don't get me wrong; I welcome that—but it's clear that the reason that they are agreeing to them today is that they want a political win. They want to be able to say, 'Tick; we've achieved the Regional Investment Corporation.' I'm not sure what else is going on or not going on, but obviously it's important for them to be able to do that today rather than next week. It just underlines the political nature of this whole corporation that's being set up. These amendments are welcome; the Greens will be supporting them, but they do not address the fundamental nature of the RIC, which could end up being a political slush fund, without the full level of transparency and accountability needed for determining where our precious financial resources are being directed.
Senator Macdonald was ranting and raving about the NAIF and the Adani coalmine. In fact, in one way, linking the two of them is accurate because they are both institutions that have been set up in order to deliver on particular political initiatives without the full range of transparency and accountability, without looking at whether the investments that the money is being put towards are actually in the long-term interests of the country. It's very clear when you're talking about the NAIF and its, hopefully, now completely knocked over prospect of providing finance for a rail line to serve the Adani coalmine, that this investment—the whole Adani coalmine and the rail line—was not in the public interest, not in the long-term interest. It would be climate-destroying to dig up so much coal. It would add to climate change. It would add to dangerous global warming just at the time when the rest of the world is shifting away from fossil fuels and rapidly shifting to renewable energy—'Here's Australia, continuing on with the old, dirty, last-century polluting industries.' But the NAIF was going to be able to do that. Similarly, I expect that we will see potential investments from the Regional Investment Corporation made not in the long-term interests of Australia. Even with the amendments that are going to be passed today, there won't be the accountability, there won't be the transparency and there won't be the assessment needed to know if these investments are really the right thing for the long-term future of Australia.
I'm going to finish by putting on the record that we're certainly going to support the amendments that have been negotiated, and we welcome the fact that that's happened. But we remain opposed to this bill and the Regional Investment Corporation overall as being not in the interests of the long-term, sustainable development of Australia.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:37): By way of final contribution and in answer to Senator Macdonald's question, I can reassure him that the government is very comfortable with the additional accountability and transparency measures that are included in these amendments. We believe that they're broadly in line with what applies in other parts of government. They certainly don't go beyond what we feel is appropriate in the circumstances. I can also confirm previous advice that the government intends to include a reference within the rules presenting the terms and conditions for any agreement with the states and territories for the construction of water infrastructure—that the states cannot privatise or sell off water infrastructure that has been built using Commonwealth funding through the Regional Investment Corporation. These rules will be disallowable instruments as a result of the amendments that have been moved by the opposition.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Marshall ): The question is that amendments (1) to (3), (5), (6) and (7) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that clause 12.5 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
The CHAIR: The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.
Senator Cash did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Lambie .
Senator Carr did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
The committee divided. [12:43]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Third Reading
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:46): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a third time.
Senator Cash did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Lambie .
Senator Carr did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore
The Senate divided. [12:51]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:54): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:55): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Every day, ordinary Australians rely on the Australian financial system. It is essential to many of the biggest decisions Australians make, whether that's borrowing for a house, saving for retirement or investing for their family's future wellbeing.
The financial system is also crucial to our day to day lives – whether that's buying a coffee, paying your bills, or running a small business.
This makes the financial system unique. Australia has many vital economic sectors, but few are so unavoidable and critical to the lives of every day Australians.
The stability of our financial system is also central to the successful operation of the Australian economy.
That is why it is crucial that the Government ensures the Australian people get the high quality, safe and secure financial system they deserve.
So what does Government expect of our financial system?
We expect a system that is not only unquestionably strong but operates with utmost integrity and is unquestionably accountable. Given the social licence under which the banks operate, we expect a system which is prudently managed serving the interest of the customers who use the system and the well-being of their community.
We expect the system to be robustly competitive, driving prices down and fostering innovative new product offerings. We expect a system that is overseen by world class regulators, which have all the necessary tools at their disposal to execute their mandate.
Over recent years, the system has not always met these expectations. Time and time again, we've seen scandals demonstrate that some in the system are more invested in their own interests than their customers and the community they are supposed to serve.
Now, Australians are fair minded and sensible. Businesses are supposed to make a profit, that's the point. Indeed, many Australians are shareholders in our financial sector institutions. A profitable, well capitalised financial industry is in the interest of the Australian community and our economy.
But where these objectives are pursued at the expense of the integrity or stability of our financial system, then the broader national and community interest is not advanced. Too often, Australians have not been given a fair go by some in the financial system. What's worse, the actions of some are damaging the reputation of the system as a whole.
So what should a responsible Government do in these circumstances?
It takes action.
And that is precisely what the Turnbull Government is doing.
We have increased the power and resources of ASIC to deal with malfeasance in the sector.
We have introduced the Major Bank Levy, which ensures our largest banks pay their fair share, in recognition of the advantaged and protected position they hold in our financial system.
We have banned excessive surcharges on credit card transactions, delivering real savings on Australians' every day transactions.
We have introduced a new alternative way to handle complaints and disputes, so there can be fairer avenues to have issues resolved.
We have requested the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to regularly inquire into the Australian banking and financial system, including how the major banks balance the needs of borrowers, savers, shareholders and the wider community.
The bills I introduce today build on these actions, and represent a seismic change in the accountability of the banking system and the executives who run it.
These measures represent world best practice.
The measures in this package will enhance the integrity, stability, resilience and competitiveness of the financial system.
The package I introduce today includes measures that will comprehensively overhaul APRA's powers, including powers to impose consequences under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, enhanced APRA crisis management powers, and new rule making and data collection powers for APRA over non-bank lenders.
Together, they represent the most significant overhaul of APRA's powers since its creation by the Howard Government.
Financial markets cannot operate efficiently unless participants have confidence in the stability and integrity of the system – and this package gives reason to have that confidence.
The package will also increase the competitiveness of the banking system by opening doors to innovative new entrants and levelling the playing field by opening access to the term 'bank' to all licensed banking businesses.
Competition and innovation are the keys to improving the customer experience for all Australians. Alongside this measure, Government has also encouraged APRA to enhance its licensing processes and APRA has now rolled out a new licensing regime that will encourage innovative new entrants. Building on this strong start, the Government will have more to say about competition in the financial sector in coming months.
Finally, the package builds on our reforms to the consumer credit card experience by introducing a measure which will improve competition in the credit card market and help prevent vulnerable consumers from building up excessive credit card debt.
I will now turn to the Bank Executive Accountability Regime or BEAR.
Earlier, I explained why the financial system is so integral to the wellbeing of the Australian people. Banks occupy a particularly central and privileged role within that system.
Given the critical roles banks play within the community, bank directors and executives need to be held to an especially high standard of accountability.
So what makes banks so special?
First, it is virtually impossible for an Australian to go about their daily lives without a bank account. It's how we get paid, and increasingly, how we make payments. We can choose which bank we want to bank with, but it is very difficult not to bank at all. Given Australians are locked in to dealing with banks, it is appropriate that bank executives are held to a higher standard by the community.
Second, banks benefit from an extraordinarily privileged regulatory environment. Virtually all depositors in Australian banks are protected by a government guarantee, known as the 'Financial Claims Scheme' or FCS. This makes it much easier for banks to attract depositors, because depositors know that their money will be protected if anything goes wrong. To understand how significant an advantage this is, consider what an equivalent would look like for the car industry – it would be like providing a free warranty on new cars.
Third, banks are fundamentally important to financial stability, and financial stability is fundamentally important to Australia's economic wellbeing. History has shown that crises that begin in banking rarely end there – they will infect the entire economy. Our Australian banking system performed well during the global financial crisis as a result of good stewardship and forward thinking regulator by the then Treasurer Costello. The Government is once again taking a proactive approach in ensuring that the regulatory framework continues to protect the financial well-being of the Australian community and the economy more generally.
Banking executives share responsibility for the stewardship of the Australian economy and they make decisions that impact upon the lives of ordinary Australians who have no choice other than to engage with the system they help run. As a consequence, the community reasonably expects higher standards of accountability and integrity of banking directors and executives.
The BEAR ensures that where these community expectations are not met, appropriate consequences will follow. It makes clear individual accountabilities so that it is clear where the buck stops in decision making and responsibility.
I would now like to turn to the provisions of the bill.
Schedule 1 to the bill imposes new heightened accountability obligations on banks, as authorised deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs, and their accountable persons. The definition of accountable persons will encompass both a prescribed and principles-based approach and will capture the most senior directors and executives within authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI) groups, that is, those who influence the overall conduct and culture of the group.
ADIs will be required to register their accountable persons with APRA and clearly allocate responsibilities to accountable persons via accountability statements and accountability maps. These steps will provide clarity of responsibilities and ensure that APRA has greater visibility of the most senior persons in ADI groups in order to more easily assign accountability should there be a breach of the BEAR obligations.
To support these new accountability obligations, the bill increases consequences for ADIs and accountable persons who do not meet their obligations.
ADIs will be required to defer minimum amounts of their accountable persons' variable remuneration for a period of four years. The amount to be deferred will vary with the size of the ADI, so that smaller ADIs will not be disproportionately impacted in their ability to attract senior talent. Mandating deferral of variable remuneration, combined with provisions in the bill requiring that remuneration policies include provisions for reductions in variable remuneration where an accountable person fails to comply with their accountability obligations, will increase incentives for these people to focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions.
The bill also provides APRA with enhanced disqualification powers. APRA will be able to disqualify an accountable person directly, without needing to apply to the Federal Court. Importantly, given the significance of such a decision for an individual's career and livelihood, accountable persons will be able to seek merits review and judicial review of APRA's decisions. These new powers will ensure APRA can more easily respond where an accountable person has failed to comply with their accountability obligations, while ensuring appropriate external oversight.
For ADIs, the bill introduces substantial new civil penalties, of up to $210 million for large ADIs, $52.5 million for medium ADIs and $10.5 million for small ADIs, where an institution breaches any requirements of the BEAR that relate to prudential matters.
Finally, Schedule 2 to the bill includes a number of provisions that provide APRA with the power to examine witnesses. These provisions broadly replicate existing powers that APRA has in relation to other institutions, including in the superannuation sector. While these powers will apply to the Banking act generally, they will support APRA's enforcement of the BEAR.
The 2017-18 Budget provided APRA with $4.2 million over four years to implement the BEAR. A further $1 million per year will be provided to APRA to enforce breaches. This funding will be offset by a corresponding increase in the Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:55): This bill establishes the government's Banking Executive Accountability Regime, or what is now known as the BEAR. This was one of the government's many desperate attempts last year to distract from the urgent need for a royal commission into the banks. When the Treasurer introduced this bill into the House on 19 October 2017 he spoke, as he often did, about his taking-action-now approach to the banks. In media releases, speeches and press conferences, the Treasurer proclaimed how he was 'taking action now' with the banks. Of course, what he really meant by taking action now was avoiding the most crucial action that was needed, and that was a royal commission into the banks.
The government fought Labor's calls for a royal commission for over 600 days. They threw up all sorts of distractions. They ignored the stories of Australians being wronged. They ignored victims. They ignored whistleblowers and they ignored bank staff. Instead, this government offered a confected and piecemeal response to problems in the banks. Then, as we all know, on 30 November last year, in one of the biggest backflips of all, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer begrudgingly capitulated. Labor is pleased that the Prime Minister finally bowed to pressure from Labor on a royal commission. And I note, while I'm at it, the work that was done by the National Party, especially by a senator across the way there who said a banking royal commission was needed. Senator Williams was so important in this approach, and I'm glad, Senator Williams, that you've finally—along with Labor—forced your Prime Minister to do the right thing.
Labor is pleased that this royal commission has been set up. However, it's a shame—even when he was announcing a royal commission the Prime Minister called it 'regrettable'; what an insult to all those victims of the banks who were not even consulted on the terms of reference. This is a Prime Minister who spent more than 600 days fighting Labor's call for a royal commission. They spent 600 days ignoring stories of customers being ripped off, 600 days ignoring small-business owners losing their livelihoods, 600 days ignoring retirees losing their life savings and 600 days ignoring life insurance policyholders being denied justice. They spent 600 days ignoring stories of staff being placed under intense and relentless pressure to push products that customers couldn't afford—a culture that stopped bank staff from looking after customers. It says everything about the Prime Minister's values and priorities that he agreed to Labor's royal commission only when the banks told him he had to. He ignored the plight of ordinary Australians, but when the big banks wrote him a letter he folded on the same day. Even then, we know he doesn't fully believe in a royal commission, saying it was 'regrettable'.
The bill itself will introduce a new accountability framework for the banks and senior bank employees. It will introduce the fair remuneration obligation for senior managers of the banks and a civil penalty regime for breaches of these obligations. Labor will support this bill. That said, there are a number of concerns with the bill. It's a rushed bill. It became clear from the Senate inquiry that the implementation of this bill has been rushed, because the government was desperate to distract from the need for a royal commission when it developed this legislation. It has rushed the implementation. The bill was introduced in October 2017. The government failed to bring it on for debate in the House until February this year. Notwithstanding that, the government originally announced a start date of 1 July 2018.
Throughout the Senate inquiry, stakeholders raised serious concerns about the time frame for implementation. APRA, the regulator, said:
Following passage of the legislation, both APRA and the banking industry will have a great deal of work to do to implement the accountability regime by the scheduled commencement date of 1 July 2018. APRA expects that this timeframe will be challenging; for this reason, the legislation provides some additional transition arrangements in some areas.
The Australian Shareholders' Association said:
While we acknowledge the government’s desire to implement the legislation as soon as possible, we are of the view that ADIs will need time to undertake changes to policies, contracts and systems.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors said:
We reiterate our view that the BEAR’s implementation date should be deferred, so that it commences on 1 January 2019. This will enable all ADIs to prepare their affairs to be in full compliance with the BEAR, and enable APRA to provide the industry with sufficient guidance.
As we also know, the government's own Office of Best Practice Regulation said that consultation on this legislation was 'a significant departure from best practice'. Well, it seems to me, in other areas of responsibility that I have, this is not just simply a departure from best practice; it is the modus operandi of the government. They fail to consult, they fail to understand the issues and they fail to take into account the needs of the Australian people when they are dealing with legislation.
Labor welcome the fact that our amendments in the House to defer the start date for small and medium ADIs by a year have been accepted by the government. You need to tell this government what to do. This is the government that claim they are such great economic managers and yet all of the regulators and all of the banking industry are pointing out how incompetent they are. They are an incompetent government with an incompetent minister and a Prime Minister with a lack of any courage.
These amendments give small and medium banks, credit unions and building societies more time to implement the new requirements. This is consistent with what Labor said should happen when we looked at this bill in a Senate inquiry. A one-year extension for small and medium ADIs to 1 July 2019 was the recommendation made by Labor senators on the economics committee. The government senators on the committee also recommended the delay of one year, but for all banks. Labor moved these amendments in the House because what was especially concerning was the impact of the implementation time frame on the smaller and medium banks. Small and medium banks are essential for ensuring that there is adequate consultation against the big banks. Implementing the BEAR will require a lot of work from the regulators, and the banks will have to implement new reporting structures, policies, contracts, systems, accountability maps, processes and procedures to comply with the new law. While we believe that big banks have the resources to handle this, forcing small and medium banks to scramble to implement the BEAR could have serious and disproportionate impacts on them and take resources away from other projects.
The Customer Owned Banking Association, which represents credit unions, building societies and mutual banks, points out that the banks have:
… vastly greater resources and capacity than their smaller competitors to cope with new regulatory obligations.
The Customer Owned Banking Association has asked for 'sufficient time to plan and prepare for the BEAR'. Strong small and medium banks, mutual banks, credit unions and building societies are very important in making sure there is competition against the big banks. The big banks have the money and resources to implement this policy, but, for these smaller banks, having to rush to implement this could have a negative effect on them and their ability to compete. It would be concerning if this bill, which is supposed to increase accountability for the banks, actually ended up increasing the big banks' competitive advantage.
The Senate inquiry also showed that the big banks had something of a head start. According to the explanatory memorandum, the major banks were involved in talks with the government from around February 2017 about accountability gaps before the BEAR was announced on budget night in May. The Customer Owned Banking Association, which represents credit unions, building societies and mutual banks, told the Senate inquiry that they had no involvement in these discussions and knew nothing about these meetings with the big banks. We think it is only fair that, given the big banks got a head start, smaller and medium banks and mutual banks, credit unions and building societies get the additional time that they need to properly implement this bill. That's why we moved amendments to give small and medium ADIs an additional year to implement the bill, and we are glad that the government has agreed to accept these sensible amendments.
While we are supportive of this legislation, there are other shortcomings with it that came to light in the Senate inquiry. No clear answers were offered to say that the BEAR regime would have had any impact on recent banking scandals if the BEAR legislation had been in place at the time that those events occurred. Representatives from the Consumer Action Law Centre and Choice told the Senate committee that the legislation would do little for consumer outcomes. The Consumer Action Law Centre said:
Treasury has restricted the application of the proposed BEAR so that it will apply to poor conduct or behaviour that is of a systemic and prudential nature. This misses the crucial element of the United Kingdom model that ties accountability measures to poor consumer outcomes, not just prudential matters.
So, basically, what they were saying was that the government was looking after the banks, coming after the banks a little bit, but ignoring customers. Choice called this bill 'a bit of a teddy bear'. The BEAR is focused on prudential matters, and not matters that affect customer outcomes. Despite all the Treasurer's rhetoric, it is unclear how much the BEAR will actually help customers of banks.
This shows once again how inadequate the government's alternatives to a royal commission were. This also ties into issues about the blurring of responsibilities between APRA and ASIC. The Treasurer and the government have very much framed the BEAR as a solution for conduct issues, yet the BEAR is administered by APRA. The actual legislation seems to be focused on prudential matters. ASIC, who would usually deal with bank conduct matters, will not administer the BEAR. That says it all. Indeed, the APRA chairman was asked last year about whether the BEAR would have applied to a number of previous scandals. These scandals included the CommInsure scandal, the NAB's failure to pay 62,000 wealth management customers the amount that they were owed, CBA's poor administration of hardship support, ANZ's OnePath improperly collecting millions of dollars in fees from customers and ANZ improperly collecting fees from 390,000 accounts that have not been properly disclosed. The APRA chairman, Mr Byres, indicated that these kinds of scandals may not be covered by the BEAR because they were conduct issues and not prudential issues of the kind that APRA would have responsibility for. Mr Byres said:
The particular issues that you talked about would be dealt with by ASIC's equivalent, the Financial Conduct Authority, in the UK, not by the APRA equivalent in the UK … Ours is, as initially proposed, a banking regime for prudential matters.
It is not about looking after customers.
What has been shown through separate Senate inquiries and committees is that there is a disjunct between the government's rhetoric on the BEAR and the impact it will actually have. As Labor senators found when looking into this bill, it is concerning:
… that decisions for the BEAR regime to cover prudential matters only and to have APRA be responsible for its enforcement have not been clearly outlined by the Government. Given ASIC requested additional powers to hold managers to account, it seems strange that the BEAR would be developed with little consideration for ASIC's role in managing conduct as well.
To conclude, Labor will support this legislation. However, we note the difference between the government's rhetoric about this bill and the reality of it.
We note concerns that arose in the Senate inquiry that the BEAR won't have any impact on bank conduct as the government has been proclaiming. We note concerns that the BEAR is focused on prudential matters and won't be focused on addressing the conduct issues of the kind that have impacted on too many Australians in recent years. We welcome the fact that the small and medium ADIs will get more time to implement the BEAR, given there was evidence that the rushed implementation schedule could have had serious impacts on these institutions. We welcome the adoption of a Labor recommendation and Labor amendments in the House.
While we support this bill as a measure to make some improvements to accountability of the banks, it remains clear that this bill was no substitute for a royal commission into the banks, and I'll tell you why. It is because the coalition are internally divided on this. Good people, people who want to look after Australians, people who want Australians not to be ripped off, like Senator Williams, have to contend with others in the Liberal Party who, basically, see this as an attack on the free market. So you look after ordinary Australians, and what's been put by some Liberals is that this is an attack on the free market.
The free market should be allowed to rip. The free market will fix itself. And we'll get South Australian Liberal Nicolle Flint, a former policy adviser to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, saying the bill 'adds yet another layer of regulation to the ever-growing compliance faced by our financial institutions, adds another detractor to our competitiveness'. What does this Liberal member think? That you should be allowed to rip off pensioners? That you should be able to rip off investors to be competitive? That's not the definition of competitiveness that I know. This is an absolute nonsense. We've got all these right-wing Liberals saying the market will fix everything, even if it rips apart families, even if it rips apart communities, even if it leaves some Australians destitute after a lifetime of hard work. That's what these Liberals stand for. That's why a banking royal commission was so essential.
South Australian Liberal Nicolle Flint says that government regulation costs businesses of all sizes time and money. It means they are less productive, less profitable and less able to focus on expansion and innovation. She wants the big banks to get bigger. That's why this government's given big business $65 billion in tax cuts. At the same time, workers who are relying on the banks to give them good advice, who are battling with lower wages—stagnant wages—and who are trying to build a future are being told by these right-wing Liberals that you should let the market rip, that you should let the banks become bigger and that you should not intervene with the banks. That's why Labor said we need a royal commission. It is only Labor that has been arguing to the Liberals and the Nationals this point that we should deliver a fair business system in the banking sector.
I just can't understand that we've got other Liberals arguing this point. Russell Broadbent, Sarah Henderson and Tim Wilson are also criticising support for customers over the big banks. It's an absolute nonsense. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Before I call Senator Whish-Wilson, I will remind senators of the ruling from the previous President, Senator Parry, that we refer to others by their official titles.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:15): This legislation before us today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017, is called BEAR—banking executive accountability and related measures. If this legislation before us today is to hold senior executives at the big banks to account, to make their decisions transparent and to put in place a punitive measures regime to actually see that they follow through with that accountability, then it really is nothing but a fig leaf. I will admit that it is the opening of a door—a crack in the edifice of the neoliberalism of the coalition. It's only slight, and it's not going to fix the cultural issues that we see at the big banks, that many senators know all too well and that Greg Medcraft, the ex-head of ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, talked about ad nauseam in his time at ASIC. It's not going to fix the cultural problems, but it is the opening of a door that we can exploit today in this chamber in this parliament to take a big step in fixing the problems. I'll tell you why we can do that and how we can do that shortly.
Let's frame it up. The banks have behaved very badly in this country for well over a decade now. None of us would disagree with that, and I think if you were to step outside this building very few people would disagree with that assumption. Underlying that bad behaviour has been a culture across the financial services industry. Sometimes it's hard to pin down exactly what that culture is for many people, but for me it's actually quite simple. It's been a culture of making as much money as possible. It's a culture of greed and of chasing profits at all costs, a culture of putting profits before people, profits before customers, profits before many employees at the big banks. As custodians of the financial services system, these banks have failed, to use the words from the legislation before us, 'higher standards of accountability and integrity' that are expected of them by the Australian people.
But it is also recognition that the big banks have failed to respect that their very existence in this country is a privilege not a right. Go and have a look at the Banking Act. This is actually tied to our country's Constitution. The very first clause of the Banking Act talks about banks being issued a licence to operate by the government for the Australian people. So there's this privilege of being able to operate in an industry where every individual and business is a customer and, given the importance of the industry—and this has been locked in since the GFC—these businesses are now insured by the government and the Australian people. They're too big to fail. Guarantees have been put in place. We've seen this all around the world, but it's officially a policy in place here in Australia. So they are issued a licence to operate by the Australian people—it is literally a licence to print money—and they're insured against failure by the Australian people.
And what do they do? They make massive profits. I acknowledge that those profits do go to shareholders and that many Australians are stakeholders in the banks through shareholdings through their superannuation funds, but these senior executives—exactly the kinds of people that this legislation is designed to hold to account—pay themselves obscene amounts of money. It is totally unjustifiable. Once again, go outside this chamber. Ask anyone in the lobby who is visiting Parliament House. Go outside the walls of this place. Walk down the mall in Civic or go to my home town of Launceston or wherever and ask people, 'Do you think bank CEOs are paid too much?' I would be shocked if someone said no. It is possible but very, very unlikely.
The Treasurer, in his explanatory memorandum, says that this legislation is designed to help hold bank executives to account, to meet 'community expectations'. Where is the community expectation that a CEO at Commonwealth Bank can be paid $12 million, 100 times the average weekly earnings for your ordinary Australian and many more times the basic minimum wage? What about the CEO of Macquarie Bank, who was paid nearly $30 million in one year, 300 times what the average Australian earns? These are businesses set up by the government and licensed by the government and the Australian taxpayer, and guaranteed by the Australian taxpayer. Quite frankly, these CEOs are taking the piss. They are taking the piss out of the Australian people.
Senator Ruston: I beg your pardon?
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Proverbially speaking. We have the opportunity to do something about it today through this legislation. I flag that the Greens will be moving amendments in the committee stage and an amendment to the second reading motion. We'll be moving an amendment today that will be a giant step in not only matching community expectations in the remuneration of banking executives but fixing the toxic culture that has got the banks in so much trouble and undermined the trust that the Australian people have in their banks and their financial system.
I'm sick and tired of going through ritual mouthings every time I speak to a journalist when they call me about the banks' results or make a comment on bank CEOs' pay or when a scandal erupts. Senator Williams would know. He probably would be the first person to be dialled by most journalists. How do you fix a culture that's set up to make lots of money and a culture that puts profit before people? It's fairly simple. This is where I disagree with Greg Medcraft. He once said you can't regulate for culture. I don't agree with that. We can regulate for the culture in this sector by capping the salaries of bank CEOs, in line with community expectations. We have the right to do that because our parliament and our Australian people give them their reason for being and their licence to operate, and we insure them against failure.
This legislation before us today is an admission, even by this government, that we need to take more measures to hold bank executives to account. As Senator Cameron outlined, they are predominantly around prudential measures and risks within the financial system, but they should also be in line with meeting community expectations and getting the balance right between a bank's social licence from the Australian people—which is more than just a pun in this case; it's actually real—and the bank's commitments to other stakeholders such as their employees and their shareholders, and their customers, many of the people they've ripped off over the years.
Why would capping bank salaries go a long way to fixing the culture in the banking industry? The Greens have always said that the culture of any organisation starts at the top. I don't think many people would disagree with that. As the head honcho, the head fat cat at a big bank, if your remuneration, fixed salary and variable component, share options, issued shares, derivatives, whatever it happens to be, is based on your profits—and I will say they are also based on other metrics, but profits are definitely the major component of how they are remunerated, their return on capital, the benchmarks that are set for them—then it is logical that you are going to put pressure on the person on the next rung down the ladder, and the next person and the next person, until you get to the teller, the lowest paid worker in the bank or the financial services company. And that pressure will be to make as much money as possible.
As I have written in my dissenting report to the committee that looked into this, this profit at all costs or profit pressure down the ladder has led to the cutting of staff, the sacking of workers, the closure of branches, overcharging fees, cross-selling of products, the culture of conflictive remuneration in meeting sales targets, and unethical and illegal conduct, because people are under pressure. I've worked in banks. I've worked in a sales culture. I used to live for my bonus; I have admitted that in this place a lot of times. I know what it's like. I absolutely know what it's like and I know the pressure some people are under. It puts people under pressure to behave badly, to cut corners, to ignore the law and to take shortcuts. And, unfortunately, these costs—if these employees are caught—are borne by the employees, as we've seen in some of our inquiries, although I don't believe necessarily that a lot of the penalties have been enough, and they are seldom ever borne by senior management. That is one thing I hope this royal commission really looks into.
I hope it looks at all the communications between senior management and lower management and staff around these issues. Who's been passing the buck? Once again, it is not just a pun in this case. Who has been passing the buck? Well, it hasn't really affected the salaries of senior management at any of these banks, let me tell you. And the other costs are the duress and loss of quality of life for victims of financial crime and, of course, the systemic risks that we see in our market, which, by the way, is exactly what led to financial contagion and the biggest financial catastrophe this modern society of ours has ever seen: the global financial crisis.
If you're a small government and you don't believe in regulation, well ask yourself: how did the GFC happen in the first place? It happened because of a lack of regulation and a lack of resources. Who could say that the opportunity costs, the direct costs, of that financial crisis weren't severe? They are still being borne by taxpayers all around the world. Very few bankers have ever borne any of those costs. There is plenty of literature around to support that.
If we cap executive salaries in the banks, would we be the first parliament to do it? Well, it might surprise some senators in here that other parliaments have looked at this. Other countries have looked at this. But one country started looking at this in 2010 and brought in legislation in 2012 that put more onerous restrictions on executive accountability, including remuneration. Eventually, in 2016 they brought in the first laws in the world that capped total remuneration for banking CEOs. That was Israel. In 2016 Israel capped salaries for bank CEOs at a multiple of 44 times the salary of the lowest worker of the company, or 2.5 million shekels, which is about 460,000 pounds a year. Our amendment looks at capping salaries at 10 times average weekly earnings—that's about eight hundred grand—and five times for variable remuneration, so you're looking at about $1.2 or $1.3 million. That is almost in line with what Israel have capped their total executive salary at. Let me read to you why the Israelis did this:
The legislation was pushed through by the finance minister, Moshe Kahlon, who, before last year’s parliamentary elections, ran on a platform of lowering the cost of living and reforming Israel’s banks.
The Israeli parliament voted unanimously 56-0 to cap executive salaries at banks. The article said:
Bankers' pay is a sensitive issue in Israel, especially since banks make large profits partly from a wide variety of fees on such things as deposits and withdrawals.
Bank salaries were unjustifiable and had been going through the roof for some time. Mr Kahlon said:
There is a moral significance beyond the economic significance in this law. It symbolises narrowing pay gaps, solidarity and consideration for the weak—
and the poor. He goes on to talk about how this is one way Israel has tackled inequality in its country.
It may appear symbolic because we're not talking about a very large number of executives, but it's really, really important. We could actually do it today if the Senate supports the Greens' amendment. We could do what Israel's done and take a quantum leap in narrowing the gap on inequality. It is the most sensible thing we can do to actually change the culture in a large financial services company. How many Australians wouldn't agree that 10 times average weekly earnings, or five times average weekly earnings, for a bonus—15 times—is still not an incredible amount of money? That's a lot more than we're paid, and rightly so. It's three or four times what the Prime Minister in this country is paid. There's no justification for the salaries that these CEOs are taking.
I will go through our amendments in more detail in committee and will continue to push the Greens' case for why we should be reforming executive remuneration. Let me say: this legislation does actually attempt to do something about executive remuneration. That is why there are some Liberals in this place and in the other place who have been complaining that this is a fundamental breach of faith with Liberal Party principles—the fact that the government is reaching its hand into regulating remuneration for banks. But all this legislation does is potentially defer the tens of millions of dollars that these CEOs are being paid for risk-taking behaviour for between one and four years. If I've got $10 million in deferred pay for four years, there are some opportunity costs for me not investing that money, but it's hardly even a slap on the wrist. We can go a lot further and actually fix this today.
I do want to move a second reading amendment on behalf of the Australian Greens. I move:
At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate calls upon the Government to initiate a review by the Council of Financial Regulators, within two years of the commencement of the Act, in respect of whether the Act provides adequate regulation to directly protect consumer outcomes, and whether the scope of the Act should be expanded to cover the entire financial sector."
What we're looking at there is simply saying, 'Let's see how this goes.' Similar systems to what we're debating today have been put in place in other countries. Let's see how it goes and then let's expand it to the rest of the sector. I hope that's not something that anyone would disagree with. It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. I will go through my other amendments in more detail when I get to them in the committee stage.
I just want to reiterate that even the Harvard Law School has done a forum on this. It said:
The issue of executive compensation has been on the forefront of corporate governance discussion around the world in the past [decade].
We need to represent our communities in here. We need to actually take action that will help fix the problems that we have in our financial services culture. I'm proud to be part of a party that has worked with Senator Williams and the Nationals and with the Labor Party—and I recognise the work that Senator Dastyari did, especially before he left this place—in helping to get a banking royal commission in place. That kicks off next week. I hope that's a thorough investigation. I've told the CEOs of the banks directly myself, 'If it's not, if this is a whitewash, then, if you think this has been a big political issue until now, wait and see what happens going into the next federal election.'
This needs to be a proper investigation. We need to make sure that we learn from the lessons of history, that we don't have a repeat of what we've seen in the last 15 years and that we don't go through another GFC caused by excessive greed and putting profits first before people. The untold damage that that kind of behaviour has caused—not just in the US or Australia, but around the entire globe; it is the entire contagion that we've seen throughout our economic system—is still being felt today.
And we should not be taking our foot off any throats. We should be looking at new ways to make sure that kind of risk-taking behaviour doesn't happen again, and that people who are representing us in what is an essential industry—the banking and financial services industry—do it properly and do it with standards, so that we can all have trust in them, trust in our financial planning and trust in the future wealth of our nation.
The single biggest thing we can now do is support this Greens amendment to cap executive salaries. The Israeli parliament did it. It took them 10 years of debate to get there. It may take 10 years of debate here to get there, but we are floating this idea today. There'll be more legislation to come on this. It's not going to go away. It's a bloody good idea. Everybody should get behind it.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (13:35): Following on from Senator Whish-Wilson, I find it a little ironic that the Greens are following Israel. That's something different! Anyway, I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018. I wish we didn't have to. I sincerely wish this legislation was not in front of us, but there have been many problems.
Can I start by saying that when Senator Cameron made his contribution he was saying how the government would not support a royal commission. I remember back in 2013 when Senator O'Neill was in government and Senator Cameron was in government. It was actually Senator Cameron who came to me during Senate estimates when I asked Mr Peter Kell, the deputy chair of ASIC, 'Mr Kell, why did it take you 16 months to pay attention to the whistleblower Jeff Morris and the ferrets from Commonwealth Financial Planning?' Mr Kell said, 'We got a great result. We got an enforceable undertaking.' I said, 'I didn't ask what sort of results you got; I asked why did ASIC take 16 months to act?' He said, 'The enforceable undertaking is working really well.' I turned to the chair, Mark Bishop, a former Labor Western Australian senator and a good bloke, and said, 'Chair, how do you get an answer out of these people?' And the then senator Mark Bishop said, 'Well, Senator Williams, I can't tell them how to answer their questions, and we'll leave it at that.' I think the chair had a few words to ASIC after that, but Senator Cameron came in behind me. I remember him saying, 'Mr Kell, don't give me the run-around like you gave Senator Williams; I can give you the drum now.' Senator Cameron went right off at them, and we had a chat outside the room. It was Senator Cameron's idea that we have an inquiry into ASIC and how they perform—how they do their job.
I've been frustrated with ASIC for many years around liquidators' issues and things that I thought people were doing wrong and were never brought to account for. ASIC were too slow to move, and so on. We did that through the whole liquidators' inquiry, where we recommended stripping the management of liquidators—the insolvency practitioners—off ASIC. Anyway, we had the inquiry, and what did that inquiry recommend through Senator Bishop? It recommended a royal commission. Who was in government? The Labor Party was in government. Did they endorse the recommendations of the committee? No, of course they didn't. Yet, Senator Cameron stands here now and says, 'We've been pushing for the royal commission for years.' No, when you were in government you had the opportunity and the recommendation from the Economics References Committee.
We should have had this years and years ago. I remember the Greens and Senator Whish-Wilson moving motions that the Senate call for a royal commission into the banking industry. I crossed the floor. I sat over there with you.
Senator Whish-Wilson: It's called a stunt!
Senator WILLIAMS: It was never a stunt. The Greens wouldn't move a stunt in this place, would they?
Senator WILLIAMS: No, not likely. But, you see, I'm a member of the National Party. And my friend here, Minister Ruston, sitting in front of me, is a member of the Liberal Party. On this side of the chamber, you're free to vote where you like. I exercised that freedom to cross the floor and vote with the Greens. Many Liberals and many National Party senators and MPs have done that over a long period of time. On this side of the chamber, we're very proud that we are free to vote where we wish to vote. But, of course, Senator Cameron and Senator Dastyari voted over there with the noes. You'd remember that, Senator Whish-Wilson. They wouldn't back their arguments up. They wouldn't come over and vote with us going for a royal commission. So, I think it's just a little bit over the top that Senator Cameron goes on with his spiel here about royal commissions into the finance sector. He was in government when they could have done it—he could have come and voted with us when the Greens called for it, but he didn't.
However, we move on. As I said, I'll speak about this legislation in summary, but I wish we weren't bringing it forward. When was the last time Australia had a royal commission into the banking sector? I'll tell you when it was: it was the early 1930s. There was an election. The United Australia Party did not secure the numbers to govern. So they went to the then Country Party's Sir Earle Page and said, 'We may have to form a coalition to form government.' Sir Earle Page said, 'That's fine. We went to the election promising a royal commission into the banking sector'—the then Country Party did; it is now, of course, the National Party. So they had the royal commission. Out of that came the licensing of banks and the transparency on declaration of their profits. That was driven by the Country Party, demanded by that coalition forming government. History does repeat itself, doesn't it, because you know very well my colleague Senator Barry O'Sullivan—who, I must admit, and I'm his whip, can't be pushed around in this place very easily—pushed strongly for this royal commission. But I wish we didn't have to have it.
Back in the seventies, I grew up in Jamestown. You know very well where that is, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi; it's in your electorate. I remember that Malcolm Axford, son of farmer Rex Axford and Mrs Axford, was appointed to a job when he left school—I think leaving was the year, not matriculation—with the local bank. That was the talk of the town, to get appointed to the bank. It was, 'Well, you're the luckiest person in the district! It's a job for life; a very proud job; a very respected job.' In the seventies, when I was a young feller shearing sheep, driving trucks and working on my father's and brother's farm, the most respected person in the town was the local bank manager. Of course, in a little country town like Jamestown in the mid-north of South Australia, everyone knew the bank managers—everyone.
Sadly, that is not the case today, because I believe this culture of profit, where the loans officers have to meet so many targets for lending each month, and where the investments officers also have to meet targets, perhaps has led to wrongdoing. When we launched the inquiry into ASIC, out of that came all the financial planning wrongdoing, and of course that followed on from where it all started, back with the first inquiry into Storm Financial—the PJC on corporations and financial services, kicked off under former Labor MP Bernie Ripoll. Out of that came the FOFA, the Future of Financial Advice, agreements. And the ASIC inquiry, of course, brought out a lot more. So it went from one incident to another.
We met with people who had been severely damaged. To go back to Storm Financial: it was destined to fail from day one. If we'd had Storm Financial today, with the last two nights of the stock market in America and now in Australia tumbling, those trigger points would not have been met. But people were told, 'Mortgage your house. Gear up.' If you had a house worth, say, $1 million, you'd borrow $500,000 against your house and use that as a deposit on a $3 million loan. You had $3 million worth of shares. That's how Storm Financial worked. Those $3 million worth of shares would pay you a retirement fund of, say, $50,000 a year and meet the commitments on your $3 million loan. Well, that's all fine while the market's going up and the dividends are going up. But, just like aeroplanes, they can go up but they have to come down to refuel at times. We see that in the stock market often.
When the 2008 global financial crisis crash came along, it was brought about by bad banking in America. It was President Bill Clinton who caused the changes in the rules. A bank could have five per cent subprime loans; the rest had to be prime loans. So they kept the five per cent, but Mr Clinton altered the legislation, the rules, so that the bank could sell off their five per cent of subprime loans—and they were not good loans at all; history will tell you that. Then, when they sold them off to local councils in Australia investing money or to people in Europe or wherever, they'd have another five per cent of subprime loans, and then they'd sell them off.
Of course, it all turned to tears when the real estate industry in America got into trouble. The stock market crash came and we had the case of Storm Financial and many other wrongdoings being carried out. Since that time, we've seen the mess in the financial planning industry. I must give ASIC credit—something I don't do very often—because last year they banned 46 financial planners, which is a big improvement in the job. We have the register up and running now. We have new training laws in place to lift the standards of financial planners. The people I really feel sorry for are those thousands and thousands of good financial planners in Australia, who have done the right thing, who have put their clients first and put them into safe investments. But it's always a minority. Of the small percentage of bad financial planners who were banned, one in particular comes to mind. Ricky Gillespie pleaded guilty to criminal charges just recently. He was fined $3,000 and no conviction was recorded. What about the clients he destroyed? I think he got off very lightly. However, we'll leave people to form their own opinion on that.
Senator O'Neill, who's sitting opposite me, and I have been winding up a long parliamentary joint committee investigation into life insurance. The committee will probably report next week, I'd imagine, Senator O'Neill. It's a big report. Why was it brought about? By life insurance companies doing the wrong thing, cheating outdated medical qualifications and criteria, where people who'd had a heart attack were not paid their trauma insurance. We heard all about that, and I'm sure Senator O'Neill will have more to say about that next week when the report comes out.
We've got the bank bill swap rate, where ASIC, to their credit—I'll give them credit again—have taken NAB, Westpac and ANZ to court. Westpac are fighting the case and I'm not going to comment on that; I'll leave that for the courts to decide. But there have been settlements with NAB and ANZ; I think a total of $100 million between them. One would think that banks don't throw away $50 million if they think they're on very sound legal ground. It's not normal for them to do that. Then, of course, we've got AUSTRAC. This is the biggest concern of all—the 53,000-plus cases of breaches of AUSTRAC regulations that are in front of the court now, where money was deposited in the Commonwealth Bank's IDMs, their internal deposit machines. Apparently, the settings on the machines were wrong and they were breaching the law in not reporting on deposits over $10,000. Where was that money going? We don't know. Time will tell, but it is alleged that some of that money was going overseas to drug lords, some even going overseas to finance terrorists—terrorists who want to kill ordinary, innocent human beings. It is very scary.
Who's to blame for all this? As I said to one senior bank officer, you've only got yourselves to blame if you have a royal commission. It's this culture of profits before people no matter what, and people meeting targets and getting bonuses—'Can we get a bit of money out of this to increase profit?' I know it's tough for the big institutions. If you've got 40,000 or 50,000 people working for you, it's extremely difficult to keep an eye on each and every one to see they're doing the right thing. Crime's been going on for a long, long time. As I said, it is disappointing that we have to bring this legislation forward. I wish we didn't have to.
I will go through some of the ASIC media releases of the last few weeks. There was 'ASIC reports on how large financial institutions manage conflicts of interest in financial advice':
The review found that, overall, 79% of the financial products on the firms' approved products lists (APL) were external products and 21% were internal or 'in-house' products. However, 68% of clients' funds were invested in in-house products.
The approved product lists—we're familiar with those through our life insurance inquiry. I'm sure Senator Ketter and Senator O'Neill are very familiar with those. On 18 January: 'ASIC acts against ANZ for breaching responsible lending laws in its former Esanda car finance business.' Civil penalties are proceeding. On 18 January again: 'ASIC bans former Commonwealth Financial Planning adviser for 5 years.' I won't name the lady. She's probably embarrassed enough now, but if what ASIC's done is right, she's only got herself to blame. On 17 January: 'Suncorp refunds $17.2 million in add-on insurance premiums.' That is another issue. On 19 December last year: 'NAB refunds $1.7 million for overcharging interest on home loans.' Why? On 14 December last year: 'Westpac refunds $11 million to interest-only customers.' This is some of the work that ASIC has done. I do believe they've lifted their game.
This legislation is basically saying, 'You, at the top, are responsible'. That's how it should be. If one of my staff make a mistake in the media or on one of my entitlements or my travel claims—it's almost hypothetical, because I have very good staff, the same four staff, who have been with me for 9½ years. That situation is probably pretty rare around here. They know their job. But if one of them makes a mistake, the buck stops with me. I can't blame my staff. I'm the boss. It stops with me. Likewise with these institutions, the buck stops with those at the top. They are responsible for the culture, the management and those underneath them. That's what this BEAR legislation is doing. It's saying, 'Righto, you at the top: lift your game.'
I was only saying to Ross Greenwood on 2GB last week, a very good bloke and a very decent business reporter: 'I have confidence in Catherine Livingstone at the Commonwealth Bank. I think she, as the chair, is determined to see that the wrongs are righted, the culture is changed and their reputation is repaired.' That is likewise with many institutions, not only the big banks. There's one person—I won't mention his name—who's been charged for $100 million that's disappeared on the Gold Coast. As a good friend of mine once said: 'Years ago, robbers rob with a pistol or a gun; now they rob with a biro.' That seems to be the case, and we need to clean this up for future generations.
I hope the royal commission brings out all the wrongdoings, and those who've done wrong are punished or made to pay restitution. Hopefully we have a royal commission where everything's squeaky-clean. Hopefully that'll be the case, because we need to return confidence back to our finance institutions, whether they're financial planners, life insurers, advisers, whether they're lending us money, investing our money or whatever. I think this whole culture of profit—look, don't get me wrong; profit is a very good thing. If a business doesn't make a profit, it goes broke and then everyone loses their jobs, but you have to make your profit fairly and honestly.
I am very grateful that we have strong financial banks in Australia. Each and every one of us—probably the whole lot of us—needs a bank at some stage of our lives, whether it be a credit card, personal loan, home loan, car loan or whatever. We depend so much on the banks. We virtually can't exist in this day and age without assistance from the banks and the service they provide. I hope they remain profitable and strong, but they have to do it in the right fashion and change their reputation. As I said, it's disappointing we have to do this legislation. I support it, but it's a case of saying: 'Righto, you at the top, see that your business is doing the right thing. See that you do the right thing in the future.'
With a royal commission now proceeding, there'll be a lot of submissions, no doubt. I've been talking to some people who are having a few problems. I'm not going to disclose them here and now. Let's hope that the culture does change, that the reputation changes, that the banks, life insurance companies and planners et cetera do the right thing for the future. Let's hope we can look forward to decades—not just years, but decades—of total confidence in our financial institutions, that their reputations are repaired, that people's faith in them is restored and that they have good, honest leadership to see they do the right thing. With that, I commend the legislation before us.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:54): I rise to commence my remarks before we go to question time in response to the piece of legislation that's before the chamber at the moment, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018, commonly known as BEAR. I do wonder about the names that are given to some of the legislation around this place. You have to think that some bright spark must have decided the image of a bear—a great, fierce animal, standing up to the banking sector—might make for a good name for this bill and said: 'If we want to look like we're a tough, hardworking government and we're going to look after the banking sector and protect ordinary Australians, we'll call our legislation something fierce; let's call it the BEAR bill.' Well, that's what we've got.
Let me take you to a source that I think Australians should trust a lot more than the language games and the legislative games of this government. I want to take you to some comments by Choice, that very important consumer advocacy organisation in our society. This is what Choice had to say about what is really going on with this legislation that's before the chamber to be voted on probably at some time today. In asking the committee to assist them, Choice said:
We've one clear ask of the committee, and that is to give this BEAR real teeth. Treasury has restricted the application of the proposed BEAR so that it will apply to poor conduct or behaviour that is of a systemic and prudential nature. This misses the crucial element of the United Kingdom model that ties accountability measures to poor consumer outcomes, not just prudential matters.
We hope that the requirement for accountable persons to pay due regard to the interests of consumers and treat them fairly can be added to the BEAR. As it stands, what we've got is a bit of a teddy bear.
And that is the reality of what this government is putting forward today here in this parliament.
If those who are joining me here in the chamber were able to sit still and listen to the most recent contribution from the government, from Senator Williams, they would have heard a free-ranging and, I think, very honest assessment of the multitude of problems that have beset the banking sector across this nation. It has been a litany of failures. Every major bank that trades in this country, every single one of them, got a mention in Senator Williams' speech. What we didn't get from Senator Williams was anything about the teeth that are required to actually call that sector to account.
This is a cover piece of legislation, the sort of legislation that you might call a Clayton's piece of legislation that makes you look like you're doing something when you're not really doing it. This government are alive to the fact that Australians are very concerned about what's been going on in the banking sector. They want to look like they are doing something even when they aren't. We know that, in the last budget, this government announced that they proposed to introduce this legislation and they claimed it would enhance the responsibility and accountability of, in particular, the directors and executives.
The way that I feel about this legislation as a Labor senator is the way that parents often feel about the children that they love when they don't quite meet their expectations, where they've got enough love there in the relationship that they go, 'Well, it's not exactly what I was hoping for, but you've got pretty close to the mark, and that'll be okay.' This piece of legislation excuses the banks from genuine accountability. We have never, ever thought, for one moment, that what's proposed in this piece of legislation is adequate to do the job that needs to be done to provide proper protection for Australians through their banking sector.
Labor has long called for a proper banking royal commission and, when we return to consider this bill a little later, I will be making some extensive remarks about the way in which this government was dragged kicking and screaming to institute fake terms of reference for dealing with a banking royal commission. They haven't gone to the heart of the matter. Instead of taking on terms that Labor had out for public discussion for a long period of time, this government has provided a set of terms of reference that were essentially written by the banks themselves. So this piece of legislation is the best that the government can do, but it is nowhere near adequate to meet the needs of the Australian banking sector.
Debate interrupted.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:00): I inform the Senate that Senator Cash, the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, will again be absent from question time today, for personal reasons. She will be back tomorrow. During Senator Cash's absence, Senator Birmingham will represent the Minister for Jobs and Innovation and the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Senator Fifield will represent the Attorney-General and Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Women and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Goods and Services Tax
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator McKenzie. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance refused to rule out any cut to the distribution of GST to South Australia and Tasmania. The Productivity Commission's interim report into the economic impact of horizontal fiscal equalisation proposed cuts to the distribution of GST revenue of $557 million to South Australia and $168 million to Tasmania. Can the minister confirm that a cut this severe is equal to cutting 4,996 nurses in South Australia and 1,507 nurses in Tasmania?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:01): Thank you very much, Senator Brown, for your question. I really do appreciate it. In my capacity representing the Minister for Health and the specific numbers you raised in your question, I will have to seek his advice on exactly the interplay around that particular issue.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, do you have a supplementary question?
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (14:01): Yes, I do. Has the minister discussed the possible impact of these severe cuts to GST distribution on state and territory health systems with any of his state counterparts? If so, when and with whom?
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I will take Senator Cormann on a point of order.
Senator Cormann: Senator Brown is asking a hypothetical question in relation to a matter that is not part of Senator McKenzie's portfolio. Senator Brown is well aware that I said yesterday that the government had not formed any view, that there is a draft report from the Productivity Commission which is yet subject to further consultation and that any changes to the GST sharing arrangements, if they were to occur, are of course subject to the agreement of all the states and territories.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, that's going to the substance of the question. I'm happy to rule on the question. Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: Yesterday the Leader of the Government in the Senate had the opportunity to rule out changes to the GST. He did not do so. It is not a hypothetical, given he failed to do that. We are asking about the impact of the proposed cuts on health systems in Tasmania and South Australia. That is within her portfolio.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, I'm happy to rule on the point of order. The question began—I took in my notes with noise in the chamber—with, 'Has the minister discussed'. I understand that to be a question directly relevant to the minister's representative portfolio, because it asks about the action of a minister. The rest of it is a matter of political debate. The minister is free to address the political debate in her answer. Senator Brown, would you like to continue your question? I believe your question—have you concluded your question, or were you continuing it?
Senator Kim Carr: Why don't you say—
The PRESIDENT: Order! On my left! I'm asking one of your colleagues whether she would like to continue her question, because it was interrupted by a point of order. Senator Brown?
Senator CAROL BROWN: I had finished my question.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:03): Thank you very much, Senator Brown. As you know—as everybody in this chamber knows—any change to GST distribution is a result of all states and territories having to agree. You ask about the conversations I may or may not have had with state health ministers. I have spent the last four weeks, obviously, getting across the portfolio as a result of the changes made just prior to Christmas. I have been out at Broken Hill, Moranbah and Gympie, talking to the Royal Flying Doctor Service on how we can improve health services to regional—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Point of order: whilst Senator McKenzie's travel itinerary may be of interest to her, we asked her a question as the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Therefore, when we ask her, 'Has the minister had any conversations?', it is clearly the Minister for Health. We asked her in her representative capacity. Her diary's not that interesting.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on a point of order?
Senator Cormann: On the same point of order—the question was in relation to discussions that the minister has had. She is clearly answering the question in relation to discussions that she's had. There has been no proposal along the lines that Senator Brown suggested, so there's no capacity to have discussions on proposals.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, that is not a point of order, the second part of your commentary. On the point of order, Senator Wong, I believe the question could've legitimately been interpreted both ways as there was a lot of noise in the chamber when it was being asked. When I ruled on the earlier point of order, I did clarify it—'Has the minister discussed' were the words I used. I draw the minister's attention to the question, but she's free to continue her answer.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you. Senator Brown, using the alternative interpretation of your question—I do not know if the Minister for Health has been discussing this with other health ministers across the federation. As I stated earlier, any changes to GST have to be agreed to by state and territory ministers prior to any further subsequent discussions, but I will take advice from the health minister for you.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, a final supplementary question?
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (14:06): Yes, a second supplementary, Mr President: when will the Turnbull government come clean with the people of South Australia and Tasmania about their plans and the impact on the services they rely on?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Sorry. There were interjections coming across the chamber, to the point where I could not hear the question. Senator Wong, I believe you might have started that one.
Senator Wong: No!
The PRESIDENT: If I'm wrong, I apologise. Yours was the first voice that I heard.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: All right. Senator Brown, can I ask you to ask the question again, because I didn't hear it.
Senator CAROL BROWN: When will the Turnbull government come clean with the people of South Australia and Tasmania about their plans and the impact on services they rely on?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:06): Thank you, Senator Brown, for your valiant attempts to run a scare campaign from the Senate on any potential conversations. There have been no conversations on looking at the GST.
Senator Carol Brown interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: No, what I said was, 'On changing the GST, states and territories have to agree.' There is no discussion, so I completely reject your question.
Internet Content
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:07): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Senator DUNIAM: I wonder if the minister can update the Senate on the work currently being undertaken by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and how the Turnbull government is helping Australians stay safe online?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): I'm pleased to draw the attention of colleagues to the fact that today is Safer Internet Day, which is a global event across 130 countries. This year's theme is 'Create, connect and share respect: a better internet starts with you'. I think the collective message of all colleagues today is that we want to see online a culture of respect. We want to see online the principle that you do unto others as you would have others do unto you and to see that the ordinary rules of human engagement which apply in our face-to-face dealings should also apply online. All colleagues would be well aware that technology has made us more productive. It's made us more connective and it's even, arguably at times, made us more entertained. But when we have new opportunities, such as this, it also means that there are new challenges. The message that I think is important for us collectively to put is that Australia is well placed when it comes to enhancing online safety.
The government, when elected, established the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner. Over time, that role has expanded to particularly focus on women and domestic violence and the community more broadly, which is why we changed the name and the focus of the organisation to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. We also have in place a world first: a legislated anti-cyberbullying regime aimed at young people. What this does is give the eSafety Commissioner the legislative power to direct social media organisations to take down offending material.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:09): I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if the minister can further outline how the eSafety Commissioner is assisting, in particular, young Australians facing cyberbullying?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): As I was adverting to, the eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue a notice to a large social media organisation requiring them to remove material. It also has the power to issue a notice to a person who posted the material—what's called an end-user notice—requiring the person to remove the material and refrain from posting the material or apologise for posting the material. The eSafety Commissioner also has the capacity to levy fines. I'm pleased to report that thus far the eSafety Commissioner has had 100 per cent success in having offending material pulled down, in terms of cyberbullying. I should acknowledge the cooperation of social media organisations on that front. The commissioner also has the Young and eSafe youth platform, which provides lesson plans to help equip young people. It has virtual classrooms for students and professional development programs to assist educators.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:11): Finally, what more is the government doing to help all Australians online?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:11): The government has before the parliament important legislation to introduce a civil penalties regime for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This will be in parallel to the existing criminal provisions at Commonwealth level and at state level. As a government—and I'm sure I speak on behalf of all colleagues here—wherever there is more that we can do, we want to do that. We should acknowledge the importance of education and the role of non-government organisations, schools, parents and families, but I should also draw the attention of colleagues to the fact that there is a statutory review of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and the operation of the eSafety Office which will be conducted by July 2018. It is envisaged that this review will seek the views of relevant stakeholders to see what more we can and should do.
Molan, Senator Jim
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:12): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement of 20 March 2017 affirming his government's commitment to multiculturalism, saying:
We are a richly diverse nation, and have flourished with waves of migration. This cultural diversity is one of our greatest assets.
The newest Liberal senator, Senator Molan, has refused to apologise for propagating racist, bigoted posts from white supremacist organisation Britain First. When will the Prime Minister break his silence, show some leadership and call on Senator Molan to apologise for undermining one of Australia's greatest assets?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:13): Firstly, I've got to again correct Senator Cameron. Our distinguished addition to the Senate Liberal team, Senator Molan, is not the newest Liberal senator. The newest Liberal senator is actually Senator Lucy Gichuhi, who is of course a great demonstration of the multicultural richness of the great Australian nation. And, dare I say, Senator Wong and I are examples, in our own way, of the great multicultural diversity that makes up Australia. Of course I endorse the comments of the Prime Minister wholeheartedly. I know that Senator Molan—a great Australian who's provided outstanding public service to Australia in his capacity as a general in the defence forces—of course supports those remarks by the Prime Minister as well. Senator Molan handled the attack by Senator Cameron very eloquently yesterday. I think that he is strong enough to speak for himself, and I think he did so very well yesterday.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:14): When confronted on radio this morning about his propagating of fake, bigoted videos, Senator Molan refused to resile from his actions. Yet the Prime Minister has said nothing. When will this Prime Minister come out of hiding and show some leadership?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:14): I don't really have anything to add to my previous answer. What I would say is that our commitment to multicultural Australia is there for all to see; the Prime Minister's commitment is there for all to see. Senator Molan explained himself extremely well yesterday. This has just proved that Labor doesn't have anything to say about the economy and jobs. This is a Labor Party that is casting around for distractions because they haven't got anything to say about how we can ensure—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Senator Wong: I place on the record—
Senator Jacinta Collins: Bring back George Brandis!
Senator Wong: Well, no. Let's not do that. We actually think confronting bigotry matters.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I—
Senator Cormann interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, do you want to say something on the point of order?
Senator CORMANN: On a point of order. That is a reflection on a senator in this place, and I ask Senator Wong to withdraw.
Senator Wong: Absolutely not! Have you seen the material?
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, across the table there have been a number of comments about points of order not actually being matters of points of order but political debate. I think, Senator Wong, on that occasion that point you raised was not a point of order. I don't consider what was just said to be a reflection on a senator with the words used, if I'm correct on that, because it did not specify a person, or was not directed at a person. This is a matter for obvious debate. It is not a matter for points of order. Senator Cormann, did you want to continue your answer?
Senator CORMANN: I reject absolutely any suggestion that Senator Molan is what Senator Cameron alleged. Senator Molan, as I have indicated, is a great Australian. He explained himself appropriately yesterday. There is nothing really further to add.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:16): In October last year, Mr Duncan Lewis, the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, warned that stereotyping the Muslim community is not helpful to national security. Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the advice of Mr Lewis and refusing to call on Senator Molan to apologise for his actions, which are unhelpful to national security?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:17): I reject the premise of the question. The Prime Minister always very carefully considers the advice of all of the intelligence and security agencies, and I know for a fact that he's very mindful of that particular advice that Senator Cameron referenced. I completely and utterly reject the premise of the question.
Molan, Senator Jim
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Minister, the coalition's new member for New South Wales, Senator Molan, has previously called for a ban on Islamic immigration and the suspension of habeas corpus, the longstanding right to trial before detention. Now he defends sharing white supremacist material on social media by saying that he's not a racist, because he's lived overseas and, in his own words, 'he ran the war in Iraq'. That, of course, includes responsibility for the assault on Fallujah, the assault that resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe with civilians denied food, water, and aid. Minister, why have you adopted a lower standard than our allies, who universally condemned the President of the United States of America for sharing similar material?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:18): I didn't actually follow Senator Di Natale's question, but what I can say is that in relation to the prosecution of the coalition presence in the Middle East, over many years now, the Greens have hardly covered themselves in glory in terms of their appreciation of the challenges faced by the men and women of the ADF, just for starters, let alone those other participants. So, I hardly think that you are in a position to call into question the sorts of issues that you have raised, Senator Di Natale, because you don't come here with any credibility whatsoever.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hinch, were you raising a point of order?
Senator Hinch: I could not hear the defence minister's answer.
The PRESIDENT: On that basis, I again remind my colleagues that we've had a number of requests from that end of the chamber for there to be silence so the answers may be heard. Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question?
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:19): Minister, at the time of the assault on Fallujah under the command of now-Senator Molan, an UN special rapporteur said that coalition forces faced hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against a civilian population—a flagrant violation of international law. Minister, given Senator Molan's extreme views, do you have a concern that these views influenced the decisions he made while executing the military campaign in Fallujah?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Order in the chamber before I call Senator Payne.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:20): In my 20 years in this chamber, I have heard some extraordinarily unedifying things—many of them from the Australian Greens. But that reflection on the service of a senior Australian Army officer takes your lows to depths that I did not think you could plumb. You consistently disappoint the Australian people and you do it with the most extraordinary lack of self-awareness or any idea of what it takes to lead for your nation in a uniform.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister's concluded her answer. Senator O'Sullivan, on a point of order?
Senator O'Sullivan: Mr President—she's just repeated it—one of the Greens yelled out accusing the senator of being a white supremacist.
An honourable senator: It was Sarah Hanson-Young!
Senator O'Sullivan: It was Sarah Hanson-Young. She's done it twice. It's a despicable thing to say about a fellow senator. She should withdraw it.
The PRESIDENT: I did not hear from this end of the chamber. If a comment of that nature was made reflecting on an individual senator, it should be withdrawn. Senator Hanson-Young.
Senator Hanson-Young: Mr President, I said that the senator was supporting white supremacists. That is what he did when he shared that Facebook post—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator Hanson-Young: That is what he's being asked to apologise for. That is what he should be ashamed of.
The PRESIDENT: Resume your seat, Senator Hanson-Young. You were given the opportunity to clarify, and you did. The senator has denied making the statement. Senator Bernardi.
Senator Bernardi: Mr President, I concur with what Senator O'Sullivan said. Senator Hanson-Young has completely misrepresented what she said. What she said was entirely disgraceful. She accused another senator of being a white supremacist.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, not having heard the comment and the senator having denied it, I am required to take senators' statements about their own comments at face value. There are other forums where these matters can be debated. Senator Hinch.
Senator Hinch: Point of order, Mr President: if Senator Hanson-Young is making some sort of apology, I think Senator Steele-John, who repeated the exact same expression to another senator, should do the same.
The PRESIDENT: I am not in a position to order a withdrawal of comments I did not hear. I have asked senators if they made unparliamentary comments to utilise the chamber to withdraw them. On the basis that the senator has denied making a comment, senators are free to stand and withdraw a comment. There are other places for this to be pursued in the chamber. I will call on Senator Di Natale for his final supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:23): Minister, the 2003 invasion of Iraq is seen almost universally as a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster. Now that we've learned that the Australian chief of operations for coalition forces during the Iraq war holds such repugnant and extreme views, isn't it finally time to follow the UK's lead and have a long-overdue inquiry into the Iraq war?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:24): I want to note for the record that Senator Molan, not making his first speech, in the chamber last night made some remarks on the record in relation to the issue of contention that Senator Di Natale has made. In relation to Senator Di Natale's further question, that has been discussed at length in this chamber and in the other chamber, for that matter, and the resolution of both has on previous occasions been no.
The one thing I want to emphasise, though, is that we in the government will not apologise for our assiduous prosecution against violent extremists and terrorists in the Middle East or wherever they arise. We have members of the ADF—men and women of the ADF—currently engaged in the Middle East, prosecuting the case against violent extremism and terrorist organisations who seek to use men, women and children as their defensive tool, and some people in this chamber excuse that sort of behaviour.
Indigenous Employment
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government has supported more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into work?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:25): Under the coalition government the economy is going gangbusters. Now it is creating record numbers of jobs and opportunities for all Australians. For the benefit of those opposite, the recent ABS figures unquestionably indicated that the economy we've created has translated to well over 400,000 jobs this year. That's very positive news.
We know that many Indigenous jobseekers face some unique barriers to employment. We are ensuring we have programs in place to get more First Australians off the misery of passive welfare and into work. Over the last 12 months my programs—Indigenous-specific programs—have resulted in 7,000 jobs for Indigenous jobseekers. Mainstream employment has a result of 35,564 jobs. That means that of the 400,000 jobs being created across the economy some 10 per cent have gone to Indigenous people despite them only making up three per cent of the population and 0.7 per cent of the labour force. That is a fantastic result and unsurprising out of the 1,100 jobs created every day.
The reason we have been successful is we actually understand an economy. We understand how that works. We put the VTEC into place—an initiative that for the first time broke the back of training for training's sake. A jobseeker is only trained up if they are guaranteed a specific job at the end. All of that nonsense and gammon about training for training's sake has now ended. That is because we only pay on results. This includes some 1,452 jobs in Senator Smith's home state of Western Australia. That trajectory is going to grow in the years to come thanks to the policies of this government.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:27): My question to the minister is: how are regional and remote communities benefitting from the government's successful Indigenous employment policies and programs?
Senator Siewert: That'll be short; they're not!
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:27): Thanks very much for the question, Senator. In remote Australia the Community Development Program has been a spectacular success. We have been getting jobseekers re-engaged with their communities, becoming job ready and finding work. Since we introduced this in 2015—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator SCULLION: For the benefit of the screeching Green who is screeching out rather than listening, the fact is that 21,600 people have actually moved off these jobs and into real work. So we've actually turned the tide on the failed remote jobs and community programs. I will tell you how many. Can you remember that, Senator Siewert? Seven per cent of people were engaged—a shocking and shameful seven per cent. I didn't hear you standing in this place criticising that. We've now improved that by 60 per cent to 67 per cent. We are actually making sure. We've got 21,600. I'm looking forward to working in partnerships with remote communities to continue this very important work.
The PRESIDENT: I remind people speaking that comments should be made to and through the Chair to comply with standing orders. Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:28): My final supplementary question to the minister is: why is the government's focus on supporting jobs and local economic development so important to delivering better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:29): I thank the Senator for the question. As the senator would be aware, we know that economic development is the key to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and their communities. The choice facing Indigenous Australians is: who do you select? What government would you select to support the right balances and economic development? Through our procurement policy we have 956 Indigenous businesses winning Commonwealth contracts today. In 2012-13, under the policies of those opposite, we had 30. Under our policies, we had 594 million in contracts in the first two years. Your figure was 6.2 million. In the senator's home state of Western Australia, we see the number of contracts awarded to Indigenous businesses has absolutely exploded, including a $4 million defence contract awarded to CareyMC. They are doing an absolutely wonderful job. Is it any wonder that Indigenous leaders, from Marshall Langton to Warren Mundine have described our IPP policies—the policies of this side—as the greatest policies in Indigenous affairs since Federation. (Time expired)
Health Care
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:30): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator McKenzie. Under the Abbott-Turnbull government, private health insurance premiums have risen 27 per cent. Can the minister confirm that, on average, families are paying over $1,000 a year more than they were in 2013?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:30): I thank Senator Kitching for her question. I'm incredibly proud of Australia's world-class health system. We've got a great combination of a public health system underpinned, thanks to this government, by a Medicare guarantee, and a world-class PBS system where you can purchase drugs, lifesaving in many cases and worth thousands of dollars, for $38. And we also have a strong private health insurance system, which ensures that those 13 million Australians that choose to go through the private health system can purchase insurance to assist them with that.
But we acknowledge there has been an issue with private health insurance and the affordability and simplification of the insurance system for many, many years. That's why, under our government, there has been the lowest increase to private health insurance premiums in 17 years, at 3.95 per cent—which those opposite know runs below health inflation, which runs at over four per cent. So we are under health inflation.
We've made other changes to the private health insurance system through meaningful reforms. For those living in rural and regional Australia, you can package up insurance packages that include travel and accommodation. We're making young people incentivised to take up private health insurance. In fact, we are committing to ensuring—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching on a point of order?
Senator Kitching: My question was quite specific. It was: can the minister confirm that, on average, families are paying over $1,000 a year more than they were in 2013? The minister has alluded to the fact that the government understands that there is a problem. What I am asking is that the minister either answer the questions that she's been asked, or she can come back and tell us later if she doesn't know now.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, your question also included a preamble prior to that. I consider the minister to be directly addressing the terms of the complete question as asked. I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question, but it is relevant to the terms of it.
Senator McKENZIE: In terms of Senator Kitching's question, I'm very, very happy to go to rate increase and affordability of private health insurance over the long term. And I'm very happy to go, indeed, Senator Kitching, to when your side of politics held the health portfolio.
If we want to go to affordability of private health insurance for 13 million Australians: in 2008-09, there was an increase of six per cent per annum on insurance premiums; in 2009-10— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:33): Given that I didn't receive an answer to my first question, I'll give the minister another opportunity. The Prime Minister promised to, 'Make private health insurance more affordable'. Can you explain why the Prime Minister is so out of touch that he considers a $1,000 hit to the family budget to be affordable?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:33): On our side of the chamber, we are very, very proud to be making private health insurance more affordable and simpler through our meaningful reforms. I outlined several of those to the senator in my last answer. I'm very happy to go to the track record. I know you're keen to talk up Mr Shorten's Press Club address and the two per cent cap, but I'm really happy to go to Labor's actual track record, not just their empty words.
In fact, in 2010-11, when you guys held the health portfolio, premiums increased by 5.5 per cent, and in 2011-12, again, five per cent, over health inflation. In 17 years, this is the lowest level of premium increase. No, it's not enough, but it is a start, an incredible start, and we've been making a tranche of reforms to make it simpler and more affordable for a wideranging number of Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:34): Last month, Minister Hunt admitted that problems in private health insurance have built up 'on our watch, in our time,' and 'it's our responsibility to fix it.' Can the minister explain to Australian families paying over $1,000 more a year why the Turnbull government has failed to do anything to fix it?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:35): Senator Kitching, thank you for your third try but I'm very, very happy to outline the meaningful reforms we're actually implementing. You're right; there is more to do. Thirteen million Australians choose to hold private health insurance policies, and we want to support them, because if we cut the rebate—which, as we all know, Labor hates, private health insurance. I simply need to go to the comments of the former health minister, Tanya Plibersek, in 2016: 'Every single promise I made, I paid for.' How did she pay for it? 'I paid for it by targeting private health insurance.' That is what the Australian people need—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Collins, on a point of order.
Senator Jacinta Collins: The point of order is relevance. The minister was asked about Minister Hunt's statement about these problems having occurred 'on our watch'—in his words—and that 'it's our responsibility to fix it.' This minister is going back well beyond the period of time this question relates to and her own minister's admissions.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, I have got notes of the question. I believe the question could interpret the word 'our' to cover multiple periods of time. Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE: I'm happy to go to something much more relevant.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Kitching? Don't restate the question.
Senator Kitching: No; on a point of order, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT: Yes?
Senator Kitching: The quote cannot go to other times. It was a quote given by Minister Hunt and it's 'on our watch'. The quote is a direct quote from the Minister for Health.
The PRESIDENT: The quote is a direct quote, but that quote the minister is free to interpret because it could actually refer to multiple periods of time. It could refer to the time beyond a person's time in parliament or as a minister. The minister was being relevant to the question as asked. It had a preamble and it covered a period of time. Senator Wong, on the point of order?
Senator Wong: On the point of order, and I've just been nodding—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, I'm trying to listen to Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: Thank you, Mr President. I haven't been inclined to engage in the point of order debate but I am concerned by the intervention you just made, because the intervention you just made implies that direct relevance, under you, will now have no temporal limitation—that a quote from today implies a capacity to discuss things from previously. I invite you to consider, Mr President, the wisdom of that assessment.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann.
Senator Cormann: On the same point of order: I fully support the way you have ruled on the previous point of order, on the basis that any quote out of context can be interpreted by the minister the same way as it was interpreted in a partisan fashion by the questioner. As you say so often, Mr President, you can't direct the minister how to answer the question. Of course, just because an opposition senator asserts that a particular quote is meant a particular way doesn't mean that the government has to accept that.
The PRESIDENT: In my view, the minister is relevant to the terms of the question. It had a preamble and a question at the end. The minister.
Senator McKENZIE: I'm really, really comfortable to go to what the AMA president, Mr Gannon, actually said about Labor's approach to addressing private health— (Time expired)
Education
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:39): My question is to Senator Birmingham. Under the Turnbull government's Quality Schools reform, how much extra funding is each school sector receiving over the forward estimates and the decade to 2027?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:39): I thank Senator Fawcett for his question and, indeed, his ongoing interest in relation to the Turnbull government's record in growing investment in support of Australian schools—in support of schools, teachers and, ultimately, students to achieve their best and to have the support necessary to do so. Senator Fawcett, in terms of the growth figures that you ask for, across government schools around the country over the next four years, there'll be growth of some 6.4 per cent per student in federal funding. In total, over the four-year period, funding will grow by almost 28 per cent and, over the decade, by almost 80 per cent. In the non-government schooling sector, there will similarly be growth of around 4½ per cent per student over the next four years, or around 18 per cent over that time frame, and over the decade there will be growth of about 56 per cent. Overall, on average, the additional investment in support for students to get the learning assistance that they require is around $2,370 extra per student through that time frame. That, of course, is based on need, which is why we see faster growth in support for students with disability and faster growth for students from Indigenous backgrounds.
This all stands in stark contrast to those opposite, whose approach to school funding was not to play by need but to play by favourites instead. Their approach was to ditch the concept of needs based funding in favour of special deals, in favour of playing favourites. Now what we get from those opposite, devoid as they are of policy, is that they run around the country peddling claims of non-existent policies. Can Labor turn up in any state and say what their school-funding policy is anymore? No, they cannot. Can they turn up in any school and say how much they would provide to that school nowadays? No, they cannot. Will they provide any commitment that they won't do future special deals? No, they won't.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:41): What has the recently released report on government services data identified regarding Commonwealth and state funding to South Australian schools?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:41): The Productivity Commission's ROGS data report does, indeed, make for interesting reading in terms of state schools in our home state of South Australia, in particular. It shows that Australian government funding per student to South Australia between 2011-12 and 2015-16 grew quite strongly at around 8.1 per cent. I acknowledge that was under both a federal Labor government and a federal Liberal-National party government. However, curiously, in that same time frame state government funding declined by some 3.3 per cent. There you have a state government, the Weatherill Labor government, that spent much time wanting to talk about school funding in South Australia, yet the Productivity Commission's data shows that as federal funding increased into South Australian schools state funding was taken out. On a per-student basis, we saw federal funding grow by 8.8 per cent, yet the state ripped out 4.2 per cent per student. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:42): Minister, it's great to increase the investment, but what is the Turnbull government doing to ensure that this record and growing investment in schools actually delivers better student results?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:43): The first thing we're doing, as we did in the legislation this Senate passed last year, is making sure that as federal funding grows states will no longer get away with being able to take their funding out. We're making sure that the cost shift that's happened before doesn't occur and that investment in extra support for students actually flows through as investment in extra support for students.
Secondly, we're continuing to see full implementation of our reforms around teacher quality, ensuring that primary school teachers in future have subject specialisation and ensuring that practices for admitting people into teaching through universities are stronger, clearer and based on a range of the skill sets that are necessary to succeed. We implemented our reforms to the national curriculum, and we're now working with David Gonski and a panel of skilled educators to identify the next wave of reforms that we want states and territories to work with us on to ensure quality learning outcomes in schools and that the record growing investment we're making gets the best results for Australian school students.
Infrastructure
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (14:44): First, I'd like to register my disgust at the Greens gutless attack on a proud Australian.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Anning. Please move to your question.
Senator ANNING: My question is for the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. For too long, Rookwood Weir has had money on the table and not been delivered. Rookwood Weir can deliver increased agricultural production and help to droughtproof Central Queensland. What is the reason for the delay of this project?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:44): I thank Senator Anning for that question and for the advance notice of it. I recognise Senator Anning's passion and commitment to develop water resources in Queensland and across Australia. We have abundant water resources in Queensland, and it is unfortunate that there have been delays in getting going on this very important infrastructure project for Central Queensland, the Rookwood Weir. It's now been 620 days since the federal government said that we were willing to put half the funds up to drought-proof Central Queensland, to create more than 2,100 jobs and to potentially double the agricultural production in Central Queensland. The Fitzroy Basin, where this weir is, is the second-largest water catchment in our country, behind the Murray-Darling, and it has enormous agricultural potential. We want to get on with the job of creating Australian jobs and growing Australian food for the people of Australia, for the people of Central Queensland.
But the Queensland government wanted to do another business case, notwithstanding that this has been looked at for 10 years, notwithstanding that Peter Beattie said back last decade that it would be built by 2011—the former Premier of Queensland said he'd build Rookwood Weir by 2011. But the Queensland government wanted to do another business case, so we had to wait for them to do that. That's been the reason for the delay. The business case has come back. Now, unfortunately, the price has gone up because of those delays. Because it's gone on for a year and a half, the price has become more expensive. These are the costs of Labor inaction, Labor incompetence—because they can never make a decision and get on with the job and create jobs for our region. Notwithstanding these delays, we are committed to this project. We want to see it happen. We want to create opportunity for this country. We want to create opportunity for people in regional Queensland who have been suffering with a slow economy. We want to create jobs. That's why we want to build dams around this country. We want to get on with the job of building and creating and using our natural water resources to create jobs and grow food.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Anning, a supplementary question.
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (14:46): How will Rookwood Weir deliver for regional Queensland?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:46): As I said in my answer to the first question, it would create thousands of jobs. In the Fitzroy area, where this dam is, jobs fell by 10,000 last year because there have been tough economic times. That's why we want to create jobs. That's why we want to build projects like this. That's why we're behind projects like this. But it's also a very important project to drought-proof Central Queensland. A study by the Gladstone Area Water Board released late last year showed that Rockhampton itself, a major city in Central Queensland, could run out of water from just one failed wet season. If that were to happen, water would need to be trucked up from Gladstone. Six hundred B-doubles would have to be engaged to do that. It would cost nearly $500 million. There's a question mark whether it would be technically feasible. That's why we need to act now, to avoid that circumstance. We need to get the Queensland Labor government to get acting so we avoid the worst happening in Central Queensland.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Anning, a final supplementary question.
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (14:48): Why does the Labor-Green alliance continue to stop the development of regional Queensland?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:48): I thank Senator Anning for that question. It's a bit hard for me to put myself in the mind of a Labor-Green alliance. I don't typically have thoughts along those lines. But can I say that it probably has something to do with things that are going on down in Melbourne at the moment, I think. I think something along those lines is the reason for these delays. We want to build dams. We want to get on with the job. But the Greens don't like dams. They hate 'em. They can't stand dams. There's never a dam they want built anywhere—except here in the ACT. They did vote for a dam in the ACT. They've got a big dam in the ACT, where they needed water. Otherwise, in the rest of the country, we're not allowed dams. Because the Greens don't want to have dams, that means the Labor Party have to say they don't want dams. They used to. Bob Hawke built the Burdekin Falls Dam. Back then, they built things. They used to build things in this country, but not anymore because they're tied to the Greens, and that means they will not build anything anywhere in this country.
Goods and Services Tax
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:49): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Fifield. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance refused to rule out any cut in the distribution of GST to South Australia and Tasmania. The Productivity Commission's interim report into the economic impact of horizontal fiscal equalisation proposed cuts to the distribution of GST revenue of $557 million to South Australia and $168 million to Tasmania. Can the minister confirm that a cut this severe is equal to cutting 4,422 frontline police in South Australia and 1,334 frontline police in Tasmania?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): I don't accept the hypothesis upon which the senator has based his question. There is no proposition before government.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:50): What advice has the minister sought from his department about the impact of such a reduction in frontline police as a result of severe cuts to GST revenue to state and, indeed, territory governments?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): Advice wouldn't be sought on a proposition that is not before government.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallacher, final supplementary question.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:50): Why is the Turnbull government refusing to be up-front with the people of South Australia and, indeed, Tasmania about the impact of this plan to cut GST payments to these states?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:51): I repeat: there is no such plan. There is no proposition before government.
Ovarian Cancer
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Rural Health, Senator McKenzie, representing the Minister for Health. It is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, and I can see many senators wearing the ovarian cancer ribbon. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's efforts to help Australian women identify ovarian cancer?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:51): Thank you for your question, Senator Brockman. Like you and many other senators across both sides of the chamber today, we wear the teal ribbon to show our support for ovarian cancer awareness. We wear the ribbon to show our support for the women and their families who live with this disease and to remember those who have died, including former Senator Ferris, the friend of many in this chamber and respected by all.
It's timely to reflect on the devastating facts. In Australia, 1,600 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer every single year. While survival rates for cancers have greatly improved in the past three decades, the survival rate for ovarian cancer is still tragically low at 44 per cent. In 2017, it is estimated that around 1,050 women died from this disease.
This morning, our government announced it will provide almost $3 million to support groundbreaking cancer prevention project Traceback. Traceback will involve genetic testing of around 1,500 tissue specimens collected from Australian women diagnosed with ovarian cancer over the past 15 years. Women who have not previously been offered testing may be able to identify genetic variance, which will inform them or their relatives of the risk of getting these cancers. These women are then able to consider taking preventative action. It may inform information and decisions on whether or not to have pre-emptive surgery or how to monitor the potential condition.
This is a new, groundbreaking approach to cancer control. According to estimates of Ovarian Cancer Australia, this could prevent 800 women from getting ovarian cancer and 2,000 from getting breast cancer over the next 10 years. The support for this project builds on the $33 million we've already provided for dedicated research related to ovarian cancer since 2013.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a supplementary question.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:53): Minister, can you update us on what else the government is doing to support the testing and treatment of ovarian cancer among Australian women?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:53): The Australian government is committed to reducing the impact of cancer through a series of broad-ranging measures, including prevention, investment in cancer research, more effective screening and early detection, treatments such as radiotherapy and the listing of lifesaving drugs on our PBS.
In relation to ovarian cancer, the government provides support through Medicare. In November 2017, we listed two new Medicare items for the testing of gene mutations that predispose women to ovarian and/or breast cancer. Women who have a family history, who are high risk or who already have breast or ovarian cancer can receive these tests funded by the MBS. This government also ensures that medicines to treat ovarian cancer are more affordable through the PBS, spending more than $17 million on PBS medicines in 2016-17 for the treatment of ovarian cancer.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:54): Minister, what else is the government doing to advance cancer research in Australia?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:55): We should all be proud that the Australian government is committed to ensuring Australia is a health and medical research powerhouse by supporting our talented, world-class researchers and attracting the best and brightest minds to work right here in Australia. This commitment is demonstrated by more than $6 billion invested in health and medical research, and the announcement today of the Traceback program builds on the government's existing commitment to cancer research. Since 2013, we've provided $800 million to support cancer research and, specifically through the NHMRC, more than $33 million for research related to ovarian cancer. In addition, Cancer Australia and its funding partners have supported 20 research projects focused on ovarian cancer research. The theme of Teal Ribbon Day this year is that it's a time for action. With Traceback and the government's investment in research, we're doing just that—taking decisive and immediate action to tackle ovarian cancer.
Television Sports Broadcasts
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:56): My question is also to the Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie. I'd like to congratulate her on her recent appointment, but I point out that there have been four sports ministers in the last 12 months. In November, Senator Fifield sought to defend his decision to gift $30 million to Fox Sports on the basis that 70 per cent of all women's sport was on Foxtel. What proportion of women's sport was broadcast on free-to-air TV before the Liberal-National government broke an election commitment and cut $254 million from the ABC?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:56): Thank you, Senator Farrell, for your congratulations. I know that we'll work very, very well in a bipartisan spirit to promote sport and getting active right across the Australian population. We've got a lot to cheer about. We've got the Winter Olympics starting this week, we've got the Commonwealth Games coming—
Senator Farrell: A point of order.
Senator McKENZIE: I'm getting there, Senator Farrell. Seriously—
The PRESIDENT: Order. Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. Senator Farrell, on a point of order.
Senator Farrell: Since she is getting there, I'm happy to withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: I will let the minister continue on the journey.
Senator McKENZIE: He loves a point of order, does Senator Farrell. Thank you—30 seconds in. Indeed, the promotion and viewing of women's sport is incredibly important to ensure that young women are inspired and motivated to participate in physical activity and that they can see actual role models, whether it is Caitlin Bassett as the captain of our Australian Diamonds or Sam Kerr—what a fabulous international athlete—as one of our fabulous Matildas. So it is important that not only are young women able to see our female athletes on free-to-air, such as our AFL Women's broadcast or our WBBL—our fabulous cricketers—but that right across our broadcast offerings women participating in sport can be viewed by young women to ensure that they see appropriate role models.
So, Senator Farrell, I have absolutely no issue with Fox Sports being given an incentive to promote women's sport; nor do I have an issue with Nine Network investing with Netball Australia to broadcast those women's sports; nor, indeed, with Network Ten and WBBL. Right across the broadcasting spectrum, we need to ensure that all young women can look up and see footballers, swimmers, netballers— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:59): In response to questions about his decision to gift $30 million to Foxtel, Senator Fifield's spokesman said, 'the grant guidelines are close to being finalised, and the government expects to be in a position to make them public before the end of 2017'. What is the substance of those guidelines? Have they been made public? If so, when and where would they be available?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:59): Thank you very much, Senator Farrell. Yes, the guidelines are out there. They're being discussed, as the Minister for Communications has already answered you. I want to touch on your earlier question around the ABC. I remember getting up very early on a Sunday morning to watch netball. They were the first broadcaster to broadcast women's sport. We thank the ABC for being a leader in broadcasting women's sport, but the ABC gets a billion dollars a year from the public taxpayer. It's very well positioned to broadcast women's sports, and I'd actually encourage it to get out there into our communities and use the technology that's available to it to look not just at the WBBL, the AFL et cetera but also at the more niche sports that women are participating in right across our communities and get it onto the public broadcaster so that we can all get a good look. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:00): Given officials confirmed in estimates that Minister Fifield had not sought any advice from them on the grant, does the minister agree that there's absolutely no evidence that gifting pay TV networks $30 million is a better use of public funds than supporting the free-to-air broadcast of women's sport for all Australians, not just those who can afford to pay?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:01): Thank you for your question, Senator. As I've already said, I would love the ABC to get into broadcasting sport—not just women's sport, Senator Farrell, but all sport. I think the ABC needs to think less about high culture and a little bit more about low culture, because there are more people participating in sport in this country than there are attending the opera or the theatre. I want to see the ABC investing some of that billion dollars into real people doing sport right out in our communities. Get the cameramen and camerawomen or get the local ABC Radio broadcasters down to the local footy or down to the local netballers. We pay you a billion bucks. Get out of the studio and into the community and talk about what matters to real people—and that is sport.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:02): On that note, Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Environment
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (15:02): I seek leave to make a short statement to add some information on a question asked of Senator Birmingham by Senator Hanson in question time yesterday.
Senator Wong: The opposition will do the courtesy of granting leave, but it is customary for the minister who was asked the question to answer the question, not to palm it off to someone else.
Senator Birmingham: I seek indulgence on the point that Senator Wong has made. I think if Senator Wong reflects on the question she will find that much of the question related to the agriculture portfolio, which I do not handle in the chamber. Indeed, if Senator Wong would prefer, we can wait and I'll come back at another time and provide the information that Senator Ruston is offering to provide to the chamber at this point in time. If Senator Wong wants to be hung up on that process, that is fine. Senator Ruston, who directly handles these matters in a ministerial sense in a number of ways, has brought information as additional information to the chamber.
Senator Wong: On the point of order, I'm not being hung up; it's about ministerial accountability. She is not the minister who represents the member of the executive who was asked the question in this chamber. On this occasion, we will grant leave, but I would make it clear that it is the opposition's view that the government decides who represents whom. We will ask the ministers representing the relevant portfolio and we would expect any additions to answers to be given by that minister.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. There is a question before the Senate. Senator Ruston asked if leave is granted. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (15:05): In response to questions asked yesterday by Senator Hanson in relation to the use of foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters, I would like to provide the following additional information to that provided by Senator Birmingham.
I have been advised, after discussions with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, that from time to time it responds to requests for information regarding bringing in boats from overseas to fish in the Australian Fishing Zone. However, I can confirm to the chamber that neither the Australian government nor the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is engaged in any discussions with the Chinese government or any other government in relation to either the acquisition of foreign fishing licences or the deeming of vessels as Australian fishing vessels so as to operate in the Australian Fishing Zone.
I have further been advised by AFMA that no approvals are in place for any foreign vessels fishing to operate in Commonwealth waters under deeming provisions. If there has been any deceit, it has been the very dishonest campaign prosecuted in recent weeks by environmental campaigners, such as Save Our Marine Life, to deliberately mislead the Australian people with regard to foreign fishing fleets and the proposed network of Australian marine parks. Without any evidence, and contrary to the facts, it has been claimed that Australian waters, including those proposed for marine parks, are about to be flooded with cheap, distant water fishing fleets. I, absolutely and outrightly, reject these ridiculous claims and call them out for what they are: unsubstantiated scaremongering.
The campaign deliberately fails to acknowledge Australia's global reputation as a world leader in fisheries management, especially in terms of ecological and environmental perspectives, which has resulted in no fishery solely managed by the Commonwealth being overfished for the fourth consecutive year this year. The campaign deliberately fails to acknowledge that Australia's fisheries management regime ensures that the total allowable catches for all fish stocks are set at ecologically sustainable levels. The campaign deliberately fails to acknowledge that any vessel operating in Australian waters must follow Commonwealth fisheries rules and regulations. There are absolutely no exemptions to this requirement whatsoever.
The campaign deliberately fails to acknowledge that any fishing vessel, either foreign or Australian, cannot fish in declared no-take marine-protected areas or green zones. The campaign deliberately fails to reference the extremely strict requirements the Australian government imposes on such vessels, should they ever be approved to fish in Australian waters, which are outlined in the Australian Fisheries Management Act 1991.
The campaign deliberately fails to acknowledge that the new marine parks will strengthen conservation outcomes, support sustainable fishing, attract more tourism, provide cultural, recreational and economic benefits for coastal communities and deliver investment certainty for the fishing businesses. The coalition government's management of marine parks will restore a balanced approach and allow a variety of uses for our shared marine resources. The coalition will safeguard not only our marine ecosystems but also the interests of current and future generations of Australian people, by striking the right balance between economic, social and environmental objectives, consistent with the aspirations of the entire Australian community. Under this coalition government, Australians can be confident that we will have both world-class, best-practice marine park networks and the world's best fisheries management.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Senator Ruston, and I will remind you and other ministers that, when seeking to provide additional comments, if they're more than a couple of paragraphs, leave is normally sought to incorporate your answers into Hansard.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Goods and Services Tax
Molan, Senator Jim
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (15:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Communications (Senator McKenzie) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Brown and Cameron today relating to GST distribution and to Senator Molan.
What a performance today. What a performance from Senator Cormann trying to defend what is the worst start ever for any senator in this place—the start that Senator Molan has had. Senator Molan continues to refuse to apologise for propagating racist, bigoted posts from a white supremacist organisation. This is the same organisation whose sympathiser—a British Britain First sympathiser—killed British MP Jo Cox. That's the type of propaganda that Senator Molan is putting on his Facebook posts. I think it's absolutely ridiculous.
And I see now it's being reported online that Senator Molan has been retweeting parts of the Voice of Europe, which is seen as a Russian propaganda site. Senator Molan is retweeting them! And what's it about? It's about immigration and it's about Muslims. This senator really needs to get his act together. He is not a general in the Australian Army; he is a backbench senator. He has responsibilities to this place and he has responsibilities to the Australian community to act in the best interests of Australia. He has not been doing that and his behaviour is absolutely reprehensible. He has been retweeting the Voice of Europe. He retweeted:
Shocking: Belgian fairground owner has to hide bikini images because they could offend Muslims
This is a former general in the Australian Army deeming to retweet this nonsense, creating division in this country. He retweeted:
Poland Right in Refusal to Accept Muslim Migrants Amid Latest Attacks – Official
This is a senator who just seems to be obsessed with the Muslim community in this country.
I have to say that there is another former general who is active in public life in this country, and that's former General Duncan Lewis, who is the ASIO chief. Former General Duncan Lewis actually said in budget estimates in October 2017:
Stereotyping any group as a source of threat is not helpful. It is behaviour, not background, which ASIO is investigating.
There is a real general. There is a general of the Australian Army that understand the issues and understands the importance of making sure that there is a cohesive society. He goes on to say:
There are more than half a million Australian Muslims. Of these—and I've said this in this committee before—less than 0.1 of 1 per cent, so one-tenth of 1 per cent, are the subject of security interest. If you flip that, more than 99.9 per cent of Australian Muslims are of no security interest to my organisation.
Yet here we have Senator Molan, who has been described online as the Steven Bradbury of the Senate. This Steven Bradbury has got here after all these other people falling down, roundabout. No wonder he was so far down the list in the Liberal Party of New South Wales preferred candidates! Yet he is here, propagating this nonsense, propagating division in this society and propagating views that are unacceptable in this place.
This man should not be defended. He should be apologising to the Australian Senate. He should be apologising to the Australian public. And if he won't do it then the Prime Minister should make him do it. And if the Prime Minister doesn't have the guts to do that then he is not deserving to be Prime Minister of this country. What we should be about is multiculturalism. (Time expired)
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (15:14): If the people of Australia needed yet another reason to confirm why they are smashing Mr Shorten in the opinion polls, it is the sort of commentary that we have just seen from one of his key frontbenchers, Senator Cameron, besmirching the character of a career soldier that has done this nation proud with 40 years of service, of putting his life on the line for the security of not only our nation but the world.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator ABETZ: And, painful as it was, I listened to Senator Cameron in silence. Can he repeat that courtesy? No, because he is a thug in the way that he—
Senator Cameron interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Abetz, resume your seat, please. Minister.
Senator Cormann: I rise on a point of order. The level of interjection from Senator Cameron is completely out of order and highly disrespectful. We listened to his remarks in silence despite them being quite provocative, and I think the chamber deserves to listen to Senator Abetz's contribution in silence as well.
Senator Cameron: On the point of order: I have to indicate that what Senator Abetz has been doing is misleading the parliament. And certainly the proposition that he has put forward is that the general was in danger; it was working-class Australians that got killed, not generals.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, resume your seat. You will be aware that I was, despite having a loud voice, seeking to call the Senate to order, which I eventually did at the same time as you stood up, Senator Cameron. Senator Abetz does have the right to be heard in silence, and I would ask all senators to observe that, please. Senator Abetz, please continue.
Senator ABETZ: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. You have just asked the honourable senator to sit in silence and, before I even commenced, he interjected yet again, which highlights the standard that Mr Shorten has in his frontbench, a man that is willing to denigrate a great servant of the Australian people who now happens to find himself in this Senate, namely one Jim Molan. He has put life and limb on the line in the service of this nation, something that Senator Cameron will never understand. Senator Cameron's career in this place has been to defend the worst and attack the best. And let's have a look at the way—
Senator Cameron: My old man fought for Britain, not the Nazis.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator ABETZ: Oh, Mathias, don't bother. This is indicative of the low standard—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Abetz, please resume your seat. Minister, on a point of order.
Senator Cormann: That was a most disgraceful interjection by Senator Cameron, an outrageously inappropriate reflection on a senator in this chamber, and Senator Cameron should be required to withdraw.
Senator Cameron: On the point of order: I did not reflect on Senator Abetz. I made no mention of Senator Abetz.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There was no mention of any senator in that response, but I again would ask senators to respect the debate and to remain silent.
Senator Cormann: On this occasion—and I do this extremely rarely—this was such a seriously inappropriate interjection by Senator Cameron, I would ask that the Hansard be reviewed and for the President to review the Hansard and to consider your ruling.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. That will occur. I would again re-state the need to hear this debate in silence and to be respectful of other senators' contributions.
Senator ABETZ: Madam Deputy President, for the third time, the Australian people have seen the inappropriateness of Senator Cameron's commentary, yet he holds a very senior position in the shadow cabinet led by Mr Shorten. Those with whom one surrounds oneself are an indication of one's character and of one's standards. And so Mr Shorten's standards are to have somebody like Senator Cameron on his frontbench—a man willing to defend the worst and attack the best. He defends the worst, people like Luke Collier, for whom and on whose behalf he asked over 60 questions at Senate estimates—a man convicted, if I recall correctly, for having broken the law on multiple occasions and for having engaged in violence against his female partner. But 60-plus questions were run in defence of a person like that. Why? Because he was a CFMEU official. Yet somebody like Senator Molan, who has put life and limb on the line in service of this nation, is to be denigrated and dragged through the mud by Senator Cameron.
That's the sort of standard the Australian Labor Party now brings to these debates. The Australian people ought be warned, the Australian people ought realise that, with the election of a Labor government—if that were to occur—men and women like Senator Doug Cameron would hold frontbench positions and direct our nation. That is, quite frankly, a horrifying prospect. The Australian people deserve so, so much better.
These attacks that have been made on Senator Molan by Senator Cameron indicate that he is willing to attack a decorated soldier but defend a criminal such as Luke Collier. Let's not forget how he ensured the preselection of a gentleman that is now in jail in New South Wales for corruption, one Ian Macdonald—not to be confused with my bench buddy Senator Ian Macdonald here. Let's be clear: they are the sort of people that Senator Cameron goes in to defend. Then he somehow claims that he comes into this chamber with clean hands and denigrates a good man like Senator Jim Molan, a man that I am pleased to call a friend and, as of recent times, a colleague, a man that has done so much more for this nation than you or I, Senator Cameron, ever will. Just remember that. His service overseas, be it in Indonesia, East Timor or Iraq, has been exemplary. That is why he has the 'AO' and that is why he has his military decoration. (Time expired)
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:22): In taking note today, I wish to talk about the response by Senator McKenzie to my question around the GST and the impact on South Australia and Tasmania. Unfortunately and quite disappointingly, the minister was not able to answer the question that I put to her. The question about GST and the distribution of GST is an extremely serious one. The people from my home state of Tasmania are keen to get an answer out of this government on this question, and they are keen to get an answer prior to the Tasmanian state election on 3 March.
My question went directly to the impact of any changes of the distribution of the GST on Tasmania. The Productivity Commission in its interim report talks about some massive cuts to Tasmania, and $168 million in proposed cuts to Tasmania have been recorded and reported. They are cuts that Tasmania can ill afford. We already have, under the watch of the state Liberal government, a health system in crisis. Our system needs more beds, more nurses, more doctors, more ambulances. We cannot afford any cuts, any changes to the GST that will see less GST revenue coming to Tasmania.
This government is delaying the final report of the Productivity Commission. It will now be handed down in May, after the Tasmanian election and the election in South Australia. Why is that? Tasmanians deserve to know. They are worried that their GST revenue will be ripped out of Tasmania. They have a right to be worried.
I think it was yesterday that we had a member of the federal government, Queensland MP Warren Entsch, say, 'Why should WA GST payers be subsidising other states, particularly states like Tasmania?' Mr Entsch obviously has no understanding of how the GST distribution formula works. He has no understanding of the reason that system was put in place. So these discussions need to be happening. The Tasmanian Liberal senators need to be asking these questions of their government—about what is going to be happening to the GST revenue for Tasmania. This is revenue that is critical to delivering the services that Tasmanians need.
Mr Entsch, with his quote, really let the cat out of the bag, because it is an imminent threat to Tasmania's GST share. We want to know what discussions the government has had. We want to know up-front so that Tasmanian voters can make a decision, an informed decision, with their vote on 3 March, because this government cannot be trusted. It certainly can't be trusted when it comes to health. We've already had $1.1 billion in health cuts from Canberra. We've already had the state Liberal government cut $210 million from Tasmania's health system in their first budget. We need, in Tasmania, more beds, more nurses, more doctors, more ambulances. The system that the state Liberal government have created and presided over is in crisis. We need the federal government to be up-front with Tasmanians. This is a very serious issue. (Time expired)
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (15:27): What we heard there from Senator Brown was, of course, the fake scare campaign that Labor are now trying to create because they don't want to talk about the issues in places like Tasmania. In Tasmania, what's happened under the Tasmanian Liberal government? They inherited a basket case from Labor and the Greens. The highest unemployment in the country, over eight per cent, has dramatically dropped under the leadership of Will Hodgman. They inherited a massive deficit and they've turned it into a surplus. They inherited some of the worst figures in health and have, in their time, seen massive improvements. Labor don't want to talk about that because that would be dealing with the facts, so what they're going to do is create a scare campaign ahead of a state election. It's never Jay Weatherill's fault that South Australia is a basket case, but they can never give credit to Will Hodgman, who's turned around the disaster that he inherited from Labor and the Greens.
This goes to the dishonesty of Bill Shorten and the Labor Party. We've seen the character of Bill Shorten and his team on display here today in the chamber, and I will get to that in a minute. Bill Shorten goes to Western Australia—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Seselja.
Senator SESELJA: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Mr Shorten goes to Western Australia and says, 'We'll do you a better deal.' Then he goes to Tasmania and says: 'We'll do you a better deal. We'll take it from the others.' He can't be believed on anything. It's just like what he's facing now with these by-elections coming up. Mr Shorten's desperate not to see by-elections on the same day in Batman and in Queensland, because he wants to go to the inner city of Melbourne and say: 'Look, we're against Adani, and we're not really going to turn back the boats. We're going to be soft on the borders.' And he wants to go to regional Queensland and say, 'Of course we're tough on borders, and we support jobs in regional Queensland.' The guy is a chameleon. He is a phoney, an absolute phoney, and it goes to his character—one message for one state, one part of Australia, and a completely different message for another part of Australia.
When it comes to character, we saw the character of Labor and the Greens on display today in the Senate, in their reprehensible attack on Senator Jim Molan, a fine Australian, someone who has served this nation for decades and has made a much greater contribution than any of the people who launched grubby attacks on him today in the chamber, such as Senator Di Natale and Senator Cameron.
I'm very happy to compare the character of Senator Cameron with that of Senator Molan, because Senator Molan will win hands-down. Other speakers have pointed out the kinds of people that Senator Cameron has supported in the past. He has backed people like Luke Collier, like Ian Macdonald, who got jailed for 10 years because of corruption. These are kinds of people Senator Cameron has supported in his political career. These are the kinds of people he was close to, and yet he has the hide to come into this place and launch a despicable and disgusting attack on a great Australian who has done so much more for this nation than Senator Cameron could have ever dreamed of. Senator Cameron joined with his Greens parliamentary colleagues in launching this disgraceful attack.
Senator Molan comes here after finishing 40 years of service to this nation. I will just comment, for military personnel serving in Australia, on the way that Senator Cameron, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, described the 40 years of service of Senator Molan with such disdain, saying that he never really sacrificed anything. What would you know, Senator Cameron, about his military service? What have you ever done for this country? When Senator Molan, in his former capacity, was helping to stop 1,200 people drowning at sea, people like Senator Cameron and Senator Di Natale were maintaining support for a policy which would have seen those people drown. Who are the better characters? Not Senator Di Natale and the Greens. Not Senator Cameron.
This was a low point today. It was a low point from the Greens. We thought we had reached absolute rock bottom, and Senator Cameron came back into this place after question time and continued that disgraceful attack. He continued the disgraceful attack on a fine man, Senator Molan. He continued the disgraceful attack with the way he described his military service. I say to you, Senator Cameron, and I say it to Senator Di Natale: I would put Senator Molan up against you guys any day of the week. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this gutless attack. (Time expired)
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:32): I too rise to make a contribution in this debate taking note of answers from Senator McKenzie and Senator Cormann. At the outset, I'd just like to say that, as a relatively infrequent visitor to Western Australia, I have been struck on at least two separate occasions, while listening to talkback radio, by the absolute virulence of the campaign to have GST and horizontal fiscal equalisation addressed in the west. There were talkback radio announcers exhorting listeners to march on the federal offices of their political representatives, Senator Cormann and Senator Smith. There were people ringing up and saying, 'Tell me which day and I'll be there to do it.' The issue of GST and horizontal fiscal equalisation in Western Australia is a huge electoral issue.
All governments, and the opposition, are attempting to work their way through this. We've seen infrastructure payments given to Western Australia to offset this horizontal fiscal equalisation problem, which has been delivered, in my view, by the largesse that was dispensed in their boom years. When you come back to South Australia and Tasmania, you see that there is a Productivity Commission recommendation that there be a cut of $557 million from South Australia and $168 million, I think, from Tasmania. People then say: 'What does that actually mean for this state?' What it means for the state of South Australia—and people are doing the work; there is an election in South Australia as we speak—is that it would be like cutting 5,340 teachers. A cut of $557 million means 5,340 teachers wouldn't be employed. It means 5,000 nurses wouldn't be employed, or 2,400 doctors, or, as in my question to Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, 4,422 frontline police.
Now, I'm getting representations, as I'm sure every senator in Tasmania and South Australia is, from all of the organisations that are concerned about this. A lot of those organisations are not traditional Labor supporters; they are on traditional Liberal ground, like the chamber of commerce and Business SA. All of these people know that if you take a whole swag of money out of a state that is struggling to balance a budget then there must be cuts to frontline services, or inefficient taxes are put in their place. This is a pressing issue. It is a really widespread issue in Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia. The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and his respective ministers need to be open, transparent and honest and on the front foot delivering clarity about this issue.
It is well recognised worldwide that horizontal fiscal equalisation is the only way a large and disparate country can deliver equality in services. An Australian in South Australia is entitled to the same police force, medical services and education as one in Sydney—unless you go to what may be an American-type system where, if you don't have the population, you don't have the taxes and you don't get the services, so either move out or put up with it. It's a really serious issue. It needs to be addressed transparently and coherently.
Just to touch on the issue of Senator Molan: one of the things that is really apparent when you come into the Senate is that everything you've ever done, everything you've ever posted and everything you've ever said will be scrutinised. It is no surprise that people have raised questions about some of his posts. I actually live in an area where there is high Muslim immigration. They run successful businesses, their children are successful at school, and they walk and talk and are as Australian as the rest of us—maybe they dress a little bit differently. But if I was to do anything on Facebook, I'd be celebrating that community and how they have come here, started businesses, employed people, gone to school and been successful. That's what I would be propagating. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Molan, Senator Jim
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:37): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to Senator Molan.
Another day passes and we see the coalition add to their number another person who holds deeply racist, bigoted and offensive views, joining the ranks of Peter Dutton and so many others. We know now from his social media posts that Senator Molan is an Islamophobe—somebody who holds views that are deeply offensive to so many Australians and undermine the very fabric of multicultural Australia. Rather than coming in here and apologising, he's dug in and defended those views. He defends sharing white supremacist material on social media by saying: 'I'm not a racist. I've lived overseas and'—to use his own words—'I ran the war in Iraq.'
Only a few short weeks ago in the US, we saw President Trump universally criticised for sharing the same images and criticised by our allies in the UK, with the British PM publicly rebuking him. This is a president who doesn't respond to criticism well, but even he realised it was time to apologise for sharing that material. But no, not Senator Molan. It absolutely beggars belief that a government senator thinks it's justifiable to share those images, and he's defended by members of his party.
Senator Molan's views do raise serious questions about how he has conducted himself in his previous roles, including that of running the war in Iraq, as he describes it. Of course, this isn't a reflection on any of the other brave men and women who serve in our defence forces, many of whom have put their lives on the line, some of whom have sacrificed their lives because of the decisions of their commanders. We know that Senator Molan oversaw an assault on Fallujah during the Iraq War which resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe. Civilians were denied food, water and aid in that attack. The UN described it at the time in this way:
… using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population … a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
The US also admitted to using white phosphorus munitions in Fallujah, after initially denying it. It is deeply disturbing that a man with these Islamophobic, racist and bigoted views was making decisions about the execution of that campaign—a campaign widely criticised by the international community.
This is yet another reason to hold a long-overdue inquiry into Australia's involvement in the Iraq War. It's interesting that Senator Molan himself says he supports an inquiry. If the government were serious about supporting its own senator, as it says it is, it would back this inquiry. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster. It has been catastrophic, and we are living with the consequences today. Anyone who reads the Chilcot report on the UK's involvement in the Iraq War knows that it's a damning document. It documents in detail those serious failures of leadership that we saw here in Australia and in decision-making through every stage of that war—a war that was illegal and immoral and should never have been conducted, a war that led to the deaths of millions of Iraqis, to the deaths of Australian soldiers and created instability and violence that continues to this day. We can trace the rise of Islamic State all the way back to those decisions made at that time. It is long overdue now that the coalition and the ALP stop blocking an inquiry into the Iraq War, something long advocated by the Greens—indeed, by Senator Scott Ludlam while he was here. Let's learn from the mistakes of the past so that they never happen again.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: Can I remind senators that there will be a number of matters from the last half hour that I'll be reviewing in the Hansard. Can I ask senators to be exceptionally careful when using terms or epithets describing other senators so that I'm not requiring people to withdraw. I understand that the debate can get heated, but there are limits on what one can say about one's colleagues.
CONDOLENCES
Cohen, Hon. Barry, AM
The PRESIDENT (15:43): It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 18 December 2017, of the Hon. Barry Cohen, AM, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Robertson, New South Wales from 1969 to 1990. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:43): by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 18 December 2017, of the Honourable Barry Cohen AM, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Robertson and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in the Hawke Government, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Barry Cohen's life was one of remarkable achievement in public life, defined by his persistent concern for the good of others and an unflappable—and very Australian—sense of humour. Born on 3 April 1935 in the regional centre of Griffith, New South Wales to local dentist Louis Cohen and his wife, Phyllis, Barry undertook schooling at Griffith High School, Sydney Grammar School and North Sydney Technical High School. Following this, he went on to obtain a Bachelor of Arts from the Australian National University.
Barry's grandparents left the Polish region of Russia in the 1890s at a time of a wave of Jewish immigration to countries like Australia, which welcomed them with open arms. Decades later, in one of the darkest chapters of human history, several members of his extended family perished in the horrors of the Holocaust. A proud and active member of the Jewish community, Barry remarked about his time at Griffith High School, 'Seven Jewish children in a school of nearly one thousand made us a curiosity.'
From an early age, Barry's commitment to public service was clear. In 1953, he enlisted in what was then the Citizen Military Forces, today's Australian Army Reserves, and he served ably with the Scottish Regiment until 1957. Two years later, in October 1959, Barry married Rae McNeill, with whom he had three sons, Stuart, Adam and Martin. Running a gentleman's outfitters prior to entering federal parliament, he occasionally considered pursuing his dream of becoming a professional golfer—so I'm told. Barry's work running a modest retail business might seem unremarkable, but it was a significant part of what shaped Barry's strength in his subsequent political career. As one of the few people on the Labor side to have experienced owning a small business, he was a strong policy counterweight to the union voices in the Labor Party. Even after his retirement from parliament, he often took Labor to task in his prolific newspaper columns whenever he felt that the parliamentary party was becoming detached from realities.
One of Barry's most important contributions to public life was his work as the deputy campaign manager for the 'yes' campaign in the 1967 referendum on Indigenous Australians. That referendum involved a significant public discussion on the treatment of Indigenous Australians that built the momentum towards a resounding result of over 90 per cent support. Knowing his opinions, the suggestion of a friend prompted him to join the Australian Labor Party in 1964. From there, Barry's deepening party involvement, coupled with his passion for the New South Wales Central Coast, led him to run as the Labor candidate for the district of Robertson at the October 1969 federal election. Barry was elected the first Labor member for that seat since Thomas Williams' election defeat in 1949.
Only a few years after his entry into parliament, the election of the Whitlam government saw Barry exposed to a period of substantial reform. After serving in the shadow ministry between 1977 and 1980, the election of the Hawke government saw Barry appointed to the role of Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, retitled as the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment only a year later. Barry was also made a Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial in 1984, continuing in that role until 1987 when he left the ministry.
During this time, he became quite close to the then Prime Minister Bob Hawke, with the two having bonded over shared appreciation for the state of Israel and the fierce passion for golf. That friendship was on full display at a 1986 dinner celebrating Barry's career, with the Prime Minister noting—tongue in cheek, I'm sure: 'All of us in the Labor Party have had cause to be grateful that he chose politics over the glittering promise of life on the pro golf circuit.'
Barry's most enduring legacies can be found within the environmental space. As Minister for the Environment, he stewarded the processes that came to protect some of our nation's greatest natural wonders, including legislating additional protections for the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru. In addition, Barry played a prominent role in securing the stage 2 listing of the Northern Territory's Kakadu National Park as a UNESCO World Heritage site, a process that would reach its completion a few short years after his retirement from parliament.
His commitment to the environment was a truly personal one. This was most evident after Barry's retirement, when he threw his life savings into building a wildlife sanctuary. This involved years of toil for Barry and his son Adam to build the park, and he ran the facility until 2005. Of equal significance were the stands that Barry took in his continuing fight against discrimination. His early life experiences instilled in him a passion for justice that was first articulated in his maiden speech. Barry passionately advocated for an end to discrimination in South Africa and Rhodesia, which he charged had raised the dogma of racial superiority 'to a fine legislative art'. However, his efforts extended beyond words and into action. Of particular note was Barry's role in shining a light on the suffering of the Soviet Union's Jewish population.
Following his departure from the Hawke ministry in 1987, Barry retired from parliament just prior to the March 1990 federal election. The years after Barry's retirement were spent as a prolific writer, penning numerous opinion pieces in leading Australian newspapers alongside eight light-hearted books on the nature of Australian politics. Throughout that time, his larrikin spirit shone through, with Barry once noting that 'the only thing that kept me sane during the pressure of the last 20 years was to have a good laugh'. Isn't that something that all of us should always remember?
In recognition of years of dedicated service in both the Australian parliament and a wide range of other community roles, Barry was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday honours in 2007. But Barry's commitment to public service did not end with his parliamentary career. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 2014, and his final years were spent campaigning for greater awareness around Alzheimer's disease and for additional resources towards a search for a cure and the care for those that it affects.
Beyond his advocacy, Barry's candid and frank public writings on his experiences battling the disease helped to bring the tragic reality faced by hundreds of thousands of Australians further into the national spotlight. In the life and service of Barry Cohen we find so many of the traits that are most prized as part of our national character—good grace and humour, hard work and an unfailing commitment to those around him.
To Barry's wife, Rae; his sons, Stuart, Adam and Martin; all of his grandchildren; and his whole family, on behalf of the government, I offer my most sincerest condolences.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:51): I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of a member of the Labor family, a former member of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Barry Cohen AM, who served as a minister in the Hawke government, who passed away, sadly, in December 2017. I commence by conveying the opposition's deepest sympathies to his family and friends and to all who knew him.
In many ways, Barry Cohen was a member of one of the lucky generations of Labor parliamentarians. He saw the rise and fall of the Whitlam government before being at the vanguard of the Hawke ascendancy, and it presented him with the opportunity to serve as a minister, most notably in the environment portfolio. Throughout his life in politics he always took an approach that seemed to acknowledge his good fortune, and we are very grateful—certainly those of us in the Labor Party, but I suspect the Australian community more broadly—that he never took the advice that Fred Daly gave him early in his career to 'cut the comedy'. It's to our benefit that he didn't take that advice, because he ensured his passion and achievements were accompanied by good humour.
Throughout his career, Barry Cohen retained his underlying zeal for fairness and his opposition to discrimination—greatly influenced by his Jewish faith and the treatment suffered by so many of his family who were killed in the Holocaust. As a minister, he seized the opportunity to be a part of nation-shaping reforms. After politics he continued to share the lighter side of political life with others. In his final act, he used his debilitating disease as a motivation to secure greater awareness and policy advancement for the benefit of others.
As Senator Cormann said, Barry Cohen was born in Griffith in 1935. His father was a dentist in the town, with the family later moving to Sydney where Mr Cohen completed his secondary education. His early adult years included aspirations to be a professional golfer, retailing sporting goods and as a TV sports commentator. Prior to his election, he was a small businessman, and he was always proud of this background, having opened his first menswear shop on the North Shore of Sydney in 1959, possibly not the typical foundation for a career in Labor politics, even in the 1960s.
For Barry Cohen, discrimination wasn't just something experienced by others; it was something he endured. But he recognised his cause was not a personal one and, whether it be against anti-Semitism, apartheid or the appalling treatment of our first peoples, he determined he would not sit idle, so in order to make a difference he joined the Australian Labor Party. He seized the House of Representatives division of Robertson—I note Senator O'Neill is here and, no doubt, may wish to speak about that history—a seat located then as now on the Central Coast of New South Wales, in 1969. Until his electoral success, it had been a Liberal-held seat for two decades. He built the seat into a personal stronghold, but it was never safe. He worked it hard. He was a formidable campaigner, evidenced by the fact that he held it through to his retirement in 1990. Since then, notwithstanding our best efforts, it has oscillated between the major parties.
In his first speech, Barry Cohen reflected on some of his motivations for entering politics, and the theme of discrimination was a strong one. He said, 'I've always been concerned with the question of prejudice, whether that prejudice be based on class, religion or race.' He went on to describe his opposition to racial unrest, particularly in the United States, parts of South-East Asia and in sections of communities all over the world. He also turned his attention to the home front, lamenting the lack of advancement in Aboriginal affairs. Of course, he came to this topic from a knowledgeable background, having served as an executive member of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. He highlighted the gap that existed between the myth that Indigenous people were making giant steps forward and the reality of the squalid living conditions on the outskirts of country towns in his home state of New South Wales. He knew from his personal experience of having visited such places how desperate the need was not just in housing but also in so many areas, including education, health care and employment. In the wake of the euphoria of the 1967 referendum, there is no doubt that electing people like Barry Cohen to the parliament helped to bring practical firsthand knowledge of the plight of Australia's first peoples, on which we still need to shine a light today.
During his time on the backbench, Barry Cohen had the opportunity to learn firsthand about success and failure in politics through the election and dismissal of the Whitlam government. At the same time, he prepared himself for future responsibility by completing tertiary qualifications at the Australian National University. From 1977 to 1980, he was in the shadow ministry in the portfolios of environment, sport and recreation, tourism and home affairs under Bill Hayden. Despite a hiatus over the next three years, he was restored to the frontbench following the election of the Hawke government. He entered the ministry in 1983 in the portfolio of Home Affairs and the Environment. In 1984, this became Arts, Heritage and the Environment, and he also gained responsibility for assisting the Prime Minister with arrangements for the impending bicentennial celebration in 1988.
Barry Cohen was fortunate to serve in a ministry that is still widely regarded as one of the most talented ever composed in Australia. At the same time, he also took on portfolios—especially environment—which were gaining importance in the national political landscape. We can see this in some of the remarkable decisions taken under his stewardship: the granting of full protection of the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru as well as World Heritage listing for stage 2 of Kakadu. Even today these achievements are remarkable. To be able to play a role in preserving these icons of Australia for future generations in perpetuity is a great legacy of executive office and serves also a reminder to us all of the importance of continuing to work for the protection of our natural environment.
In the arts portfolio, Barry Cohen worked hard to ensure art support was not compromised, despite tough budget policy and many competing pressures, which earned him praise from the sector. His capacities in the arts area were described in an anecdote in Bill Shorten's speech to his memorial service, where he tells a story of Barry Cohen starting his first menswear shop in 1959 and a friend of his told him, 'You should go down. There's another shop on the Pacific Highway that specialises in artwork. Add some character to the interior of your shop.' It happened that Barry had known the shop owners for a long time. He thought they were a respectable middle-class family, but he thought their 18-year-old son Brett was a 'five-star nutter'. Barry bought a few pieces on his way out. The owner asked if he was interested in purchasing some of his son's paintings. He pointed to five he'd had hanging in the shop and said, '15 quid or all five for 60 pounds.' Barry said, 'I don't know much about art and I wasn't about to be conned by an old codger trying to sell his son's paintings, so I replied, "It's kind of you to offer, but, no, thank you, Mr Whiteley."'
Mr Cohen's role in the organisation of the Australian bicentennial celebrations should not be overlooked. As Senator Cormann mentioned, he was very close to Bob Hawke. They shared an emotional attachment, a commitment to Israel and a very strong sporting rivalry on the golf course. Nevertheless, despite this, he was a victim of changing winds in his right faction and wasn't returned to the ministry after the 1987 election. He served his remaining three years in the parliament on the backbench.
Barry Cohen used his immediate post-parliamentary career to complete several books and write columns, including for The Bulletin and The Australian. This was a great outlet for his sense of enjoyment in many of the everyday occurrences of political life. His humour shone through in his collections of anecdotes and witticisms and in particular in his collections of stories about the former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Whitlamisms, as they are known, were the product of dedicated study from when he first entered the House in 1969. He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2007 in recognition of his service to the Australian parliament and the community.
When he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease Mr Cohen was shocked, and it took him some time to come to terms with being told he was at the early stages of dementia after being hospitalised after a series of falls. However, with characteristic courage, he recognised that he could be an advocate for the hundreds of thousands of Australians living with dementia and their families—in many ways his greatest realisation. He joked that he could employ some of the tactics that his constituents employed to lobby him when he was their local member to in turn lobby for action and encourage others to do so. His challenge he saw as a policy challenge for our country, and set about addressing it just as he had so many other challenges in his career, seeking a better deal for older Australians.
Barry Cohen deserves a lasting place in Labor history and a lasting place in Australia's history. He drew on his experiences of discrimination to pursue policy changes that would benefit countless others from all backgrounds and all walks of life. He served amongst some of the finest parliamentarians of his generation to deliver the preservation of some of the most iconic and valuable environments in our country. We are fortunate to have had such a dedicated, passionate but of course humorous servant to grace our parliament. Politics is a tough business, but laughter was his antidote to the pressures and tribulations of the job. He said:
To see the absurdity of some of the things we were doing; to laugh at myself and my colleagues.
Barry Cohen was indeed the life of the party. On behalf of the Labor Party, I again extend my and all of our empathies to Rae and all of his family and friends at this time.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (16:02): It is a sad occasion on which to rise, but I absolutely appreciate the opportunity to put on the record remarks around the amazing Barry Cohen. I recall the first time I met Barry Cohen. I was considering running for preselection and I was advised that I should go and meet him. In all the years I had lived on the coast, and being only a fairly recently joining member of the Labor Party, I hadn't had the pleasure of making his company. So I went to the bottle shop on the way at the bottom of the hill, I picked up a bottle of red and a bottle of white and I proceeded up to the top of the hill to what's now known as the Walkabout Wildlife Park but was Barry's Calga Springs Sanctuary at the time. I was greeted first by a wallaby and then by Barry, emerging from the back of the house at the call of his wife, Rae. He stood on the balcony and he looked me up and down; I had the two bottles in my hand. He said, 'Oh, well, what have you got there?' I said, 'Barry, I didn't know if you liked red or white, so I brought one of each.' He said, 'I don't know anything about you, darling, but I like your style.' That was our first encounter.
What a generous and wise mentor he was for me on so many occasions. That evening we sat as the sun set, and the wallabies jumped around in a free and open environment, which was quite a radical departure from the way in which engagement with our native animals is often experienced by tourists to Australia. Barry had vision there and he created this wonderful sanctuary that is a hallmark of the tourist industry that is part of the Central Coast. I'm very pleased to say that just last week I was in a local shop, talking to a young girl who has undertaken some training at TAFE and is on a disability support. She loves animals and she is going to work at the Walkabout Wildlife Park. It has been a great place of engagement for people in our local community.
I wanted to acknowledge that Barry's passing on 18 December was something that really affected so many people on the Central Coast who have been long-term residents. Barry was very much a part of the furniture. I know that, when he retired from politics and when he finally sold the business that he had up there on the Central Coast and moved to Bungendore, he was still very much enamoured of the political process, for all its flaws—and I noted Senator Wong's comments about his capacity to critique and to laugh at the lunacy of some of the things that happened around this place. He was still a passionate believer in the power of democracy to improve people's lives, and the passion that it is possible to bring to politics, to bring about change.
Much has been said of Barry's contributions to a range of policy areas, particularly the environment. In my conversations with Barry, the one particular issue that he spoke to me most commonly about was his efforts to improve and change practices to enhance road safety. There was always this profoundly practical dimension to the ideas that Barry wanted to advance, and he spoke with great joy about the changes that he was able to make and the lives of Australians that had been saved as a result of that policymaking that he was part of.
On that very first meeting that I had with Barry, he gave me some reading to take away with me—which shouldn't surprise people. Amongst the reading—also no surprise—was one of his very own books. In fact, it was How to Become Prime Minister, which Barry wrote in 1990, six years before I even joined the Labor Party. It was a wonderful entry for me, through him, into his perspective on what happens here in Canberra.
Barry married Rae McNeill in October 1959. To Rae and their three sons, Stuart, Adam and Martin, and to Barry's grandchildren, I convey my deepest condolences, as a long-term resident of the Central Coast, for and on behalf of the people of the Central Coast. Certainly, as a Labor person, he is writ large in our history. But I also wanted to acknowledge that the community remembers some remarkable local contributions that Barry made. Many of you would have heard of the RED scheme, which was a very significant way of getting funding into the local community. The RED scheme on the Central Coast, on Barry's watch, delivered the very first versions of our surf lifesaving clubs up and down the coast. That was the way in which Barry engaged with the local people on a very, very practical level. Those surf clubs became the foundation institutions and the foundation places in which the community gathered at Copacabana, where I live; at Macmasters Beach; at Terrigal; at Avoca. That section of Robertson that he represented relied on those buildings to create spaces in which we could become a community in what was a very much a growing area at the time.
As Senator Wong has indicated, Barry Cohen won the seat in 1969. He wrested it from Liberal control, which it had been under for 20 years, and then held onto it till his retirement in 1990, no small feat in what is still declared pretty much a bellwether seat. Barry was part of the community. He read it very well, he appreciated the people who were there and he had an amazing set of allies. In fact, I recall him talking to me about a local real estate agent by the name of George Brand, who has real estate offices right across the coast. George Brand comes from the area of Copacabana where I live. Barry said that one day this fellow rolled up in his office wearing his stubbies shorts and a T-shirt, and he said he didn't know who he was. He walked in and just said, 'I'd like to contribute to your campaign, Barry,' and just put the money straight down and helped him out. Local businesses really understood that, to grow their businesses, they needed a great member who was going to make practical enhancements to our local community and deliver the roads that enable communities to function and enable businesses to function. They had a great friend in Barry Cohen.
Before, during and after politics, Barry Cohen was very true to his cultural and faith tradition. He championed always a very strong and enduring friendship between Australia and Israel, and he never resiled from his commitment to that end. He certainly shared with me on a regular basis his thoughts about pressing matters with regard to our international relations.
Barry's determination to try and help shape the debate, both at a local level and the national level, continued, as has been indicated, well after his parliamentary career. He continued to write books and he continued to go around the country. I'm sure that there was a powerful educative impact from Barry telling the stories of the human interactions that happen in this place, revealing the flawed nature, but also the possible nature, of the work that we do. I noted in the comments that Bill Shorten made yesterday—and I'm very sad to say that parliamentary business prevented me from being able to attend that memorial service yesterday as a former member for Robertson—when he paid tribute to Barry's record in the parliament by indicating Barry's response to his final illness of Alzheimer's, his turning it from a personal struggle into a policy challenge. He certainly communicated with me, at least early in his illness, his ideas about what needed to be tackled. As Bill Shorten said, he did not go gently into that good night. Instead, he took up the fight on behalf of every Australian living with dementia, urging politicians from all sides to deliver a better deal for older Australians. I think that passion that he embodied in his last policy push remains a signature for a life lived in great service of the Australian people. I am proud to have called him my friend.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (16:12): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Sinodinos from 12 February to 28 March 2018, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:12): by leave—I move
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Carr and Senator Bilyk for tomorrow, 7 February, and Thursday, 8 February, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in a recent survey of voters, conducted by the Australian Population Research Institute, it was found that 74 per cent of respondents believed Australia does not need to increase its population, and
(ii) a Galaxy research poll, conducted by Mr Dick Smith in September 2017, indicated that 83 per cent of respondents believed major parties should have a population policy, and 82 per cent agreed population growth was an issue on which politicians needed to act; and
(b) calls upon the Government commit to a plebiscite, held in conjunction with the next federal election, asking voters to indicate their preferred stance on Australia adopting a more sustainable population target. (general business notice of motion no. 678)
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and other legislation, and for related purposes. Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Commitments for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2018. (general business notice of motion no. 679)
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
(1) That the Senate notes—
(a) the claims by academic Mr Clive Hamilton, author of the unpublished book, Silent Invasion, that he is experiencing difficulty proceeding with publishing his book critical of foreign influence in our institutions, including this Parliament;
(b) in particular, his publisher's concern about being subject to significant court action financed by or at the behest of a foreign nation; and
(c) the report in The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on 5 February 2018, that members of federal Parliament's national security committee, namely the members for Canning and Holt, have expressed support for using parliamentary privilege to enable the publication of the book.
(2) That in the interests of free speech and Australian sovereignty, the Senate calls upon the Government to render such assistance to Mr Hamilton as to enable his claims to be considered or published. (general business notice of motion no. 680)
Senator O'Neill to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that:
(i) Liberal Governments across the country are causing inequality to increase in Australia by failing to deal with record low wage growth,
(ii) this has meant that the standard of living of workers and their families has been seriously eroded,
(iii) the capacity of hardworking men and women to protect and improve wages and working conditions is now diminished, and
(iv) the failure of the system has left unions, such as the NSW Rail, Tram and Bus Union, limited in their capacity to fight for their members and protect community safety, decent wages and fair working conditions; and
(b) calls on the Liberal Party of Australia to prioritise the wages and job security of hardworking Australians. (general business notice of motion no. 681)
Senator Smith to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 27 January 2018 was International Holocaust Remembrance Day which remembers the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators;
(b) notes the remarks of former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, who remarked the day is one on which "we must reassert our commitment to human rights ... and go beyond remembrance, and make sure that new generations know this history. We must apply the lessons of the Holocaust to today's world. And we must do our utmost so that all peoples may enjoy protection and rights for which the United Nations stands";
(c) acknowledges the importance of International Holocaust Remembrance Day in honouring the memory of all Holocaust victims and encouraging the development of education programs about the history of the Holocaust and the stories of its victims in order to protect against future acts of genocide;
(d) acknowledges the 27 000 Holocaust survivors who migrated to Australia after the Second World War to seek new beginnings; and
(e) acknowledges the ongoing efforts of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance worldwide, and welcomes Australia's recent acceptance by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance as a liaison country. (general business notice of motion no. 682)
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) access to appropriate pain and symptom management and being surrounded by family are most important to people who are dying,
(ii) palliative care is not just about pain and symptom management, it is about providing meaningful social, spiritual and emotional support for families and patients,
(iii) for many Australians, their end-of-life journey will likely be punctuated with avoidable, or unwanted admissions to hospital with the confusion, loss of dignity and loss of control that comes with it,
(iv) Australians need to be more engaged in conversations regarding their end-of-life care wishes, and
(v) palliative care is not just about dying, it is about living as well as you can for as long as you can;
(b) notes that Palliative Care Australia estimates that while 70 per cent of Australians wish to die at home, only around 14 per cent do so;
(c) acknowledges that the Productivity Commission's draft report into human services, released in June 2017, argued that:
(i) there are just 213 palliative medical specialists across Australia, equating to one specialist for every 704 deaths each year,
(ii) more community-based palliative care services are needed to enable more people who wish to die at home to do so, and
(iii) end-of-life care in residential aged care needs to be better resourced and delivered by skilled staff;
(d) further notes Palliative Care Australia's call for a national palliative care commissioner who would examine existing palliative care services and programs nationally, in order to assess their efficiency and effectiveness in supporting terminally ill individuals and their families to live as well as possible, right to the end of life;
(e) calls on all senators to have an end-of-life conversation with their loved ones; and
(f) calls on the Government to make palliative care a health priority and appoint a national palliative care commissioner. (general business notice of motion no.683)
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Internet access is now an essential service and has been declared as such in several countries, including Canada, Spain, and Finland,
(ii) regulation of telecommunication services, including fixed-line, mobile and broadband services, must treat telecommunications as an essential service,
(iii) the 2016-17 annual report of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman reported 158 016 complaints, representing a 41 per cent increase in complaints, and
(iv) the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman received approximately double the number of complaints received by Ombudsman offices covering other essential services, including energy, water and financial services; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) bring forward the intended Review of the Telecommunications Consumer Safeguards Framework (Safeguards Review), including review of the industry self-regulatory arrangements set out in Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997,
(ii) closely monitor the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code reviews process and direct the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to make an industry standard to drive better customer service and industry practice if the process fails to deliver effectively, and
(iii) ensure that the direction to the AMCA to implement new broadband consumer protections, as announced by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) on 21 December 2017, is enacted swiftly. (general business notice of motion no. 684)
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(1) The Senate notes that:
(a) the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Assessment Committee (SDLAAC) plays an important role in assessing and advising the Basin Officials Committee (BOC) on proposed measures which may provide an opportunity to adjust Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL);
(b) the SDLAAC also advises the BOC on constraint measures which remove or ease constraints on the capacity to deliver environmental water;
(c) in June 2017, the BOC endorsed a package of 36 measures to be included for modelling assessment of SDL adjustment contribution; and
(d) in order to make a considered decision on any changes to the SDL, the Senate requires access to the assessments of the 36 adjustment mechanism projects.
(2) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 3pm on 15 February 2018, all assessments of the 36 adjustment mechanism projects completed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), including all individual proposal assessment information given to SDLAAC or BOC by the MDBA to inform their decision to support or not support an SDL adjustment or constraints proposal. (general business notice of motion no. 685)
Senators Rhiannon, Hinch and Bartlett to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australian Government management of kangaroos tends to be structured to service commercial shooting and farming industries,
(ii) in 2015, between 65 000 and 650 000 kangaroos suffered non-lethal body-shots and a further 110 000 joeys died from commercial shooting alone, with pouch joeys decapitated or their skulls crushed,
(iii) kangaroos are slow-growing and are shot beyond their low reproductive capacity, with long term government raw data illustrating kangaroo absence and decline, yet this is not reflected in the published population estimates from which an impossibly high commercial shooting quota is extracted, and
(iv) kangaroo is a wild-shot bushmeat and is butchered and transported on open unrefrigerated trucks in the field and, in 2014, Russia banned kangaroo meat imports for a third time due to contamination, with rapid food security alerts in the European Union about kangaroo meat since then; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth and all states to make available all historical and current kangaroo survey data and methodologies, and commercial and non-commercial shooting and demographics data for all shooting zones across Australia. (general business notice of motion no. 686)
Senators Rhiannon and Carr to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the NSW government has awarded $4 billion in contracts to build the Intercity and Waratah train fleets overseas, and
(ii) this decision by the NSW government will impact local rail manufacturers and supply chain businesses, and puts up to 15 000 existing jobs across Australia at risk; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth and all states to cooperate and strengthen rail manufacturing in Australia by:
(i) establishing a National Rail Manufacturing Industry Plan to maximise the benefits from the $46 billion investment expected over the next decade,
(ii) working together to achieve a long-term, sustainable and efficient rail industry that will provide job security for local rail manufacturers,
(iii) harmonising safety standards that would maximise manufacturing efficiencies, and
(iv) working with the rail industry to develop Rail Industry Skills Centres at local TAFE and colleges, and ensuring the use of local apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets for at least ten per cent of the total labour hours. (general business notice of motion no. 687)
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) access to affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including abortion and contraception, is part of every woman's right to control her own body,
(ii) recently, the primary provider of surgical abortions in Tasmania closed their clinic, and the Tasmanian government has provided no guarantee that women will be able to access services in their home state, and would instead be forced to travel interstate for treatment, and
(iii) across Australia, inconsistent laws and service provision means access to abortion can be extremely difficult, and women face high out-of-pocket costs; in particular, women in remote, rural and regional areas are often forced to travel long distances to urban clinics; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) show leadership and work with states and territories to remove all barriers to Australians accessing abortion services, including decriminalisation of abortion in New South Wales and Queensland, and provision of surgical abortion services in public hospitals across the country, and
(ii) where state and territory health systems fail to provide abortion services, step in to ensure funding and provision of essential reproductive health services for all Australians. (general business notice of motion no. 688)
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with concern:
(i) recent revelations about Senator Molan's personal views, particularly his support of racist material through social media,
(ii) allegations that Senator Molan, as Chief of Operations for Coalition Forces in Iraq, oversaw the deprivation of food, water and humanitarian supplies to civilians during the second coalition assault on the city of Fallujah, and
(iii) the failure of successive Australian Governments to initiate any inquiry into how and why the Howard Government decided to go to war in Iraq, and Australia's actions in that war;
(b) further notes that such an inquiry has long been supported by eminent Australians, including a former Prime Minister, a former Secretary of the Department of Defence, and a former Chief of the Australian Defence Force; and
(c) calls on all parties to support a long overdue inquiry into Australia's involvement in the Iraq war. (general business notice of motion no. 689)
Senators Wong, Bilyk, Urquhart, Singh, Gallacher, Polley, Farrell and Brown to move on the next day of sitting
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on 3 January 2018, the Treasurer (Mr Morrison) announced that the final report of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the economic impact of horizontal fiscal equalisation would be delayed to 15 May 2018;
(b) notes that the Productivity Commission's draft report revealed that under changes to the distribution of GST revenue Tasmania stands to lose $168 million in the first year alone, and South Australia stands to lose $557 million in the first year alone;
(c) notes that the Turnbull Government's decision means the final report will not be delivered until after the South Australian and Tasmanian state elections, and after the next Federal budget is handed down;
(d) condemns the Turnbull Government for hiding its plans from the people of Australia; and
(e) calls on the Turnbull Government to make its planned changes to the distribution of the GST clear before South Australians and Tasmanians vote in upcoming state elections. (general business notice of motion no. 690)
Senator Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the 12th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species was held in Manila in October 2017,
(ii) a consensus agreement among 50 nations from Asia, Africa and Europe decided to add blue sharks, dusky whalers and white-spotted wedgefish to a list of species requiring additional protection, and
(iii) the Government subsequently submitted reservations to the listing of the three species, which applies exemptions of the agreed protections within Australian waters;
(b) notes, with concern, the increasing belligerence of the public statements of the Minister for the Environment (Mr Frydenberg) on matters relating to lethal measures to mitigate the risk of human encounters with protected Great White Sharks, including urging state governments to adopt nets and drum lines which have not proven to make beaches safe for humans, but are indiscriminate killers of protected marine life such as dolphins, whales, other endangered shark species and turtles; and
(c) calls upon the Government to continue the pre-Coalition Government tradition of Australia being an international leader in shark conservation and meet international expectations and standards in the protection of the Great White Shark, blue shark, dusky whalers and white-spotted wedgefish in Australian waters. (general business notice of motion no. 691)
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:13): I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 677, standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to consideration of the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017.
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Siewert for today, proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017, postponed till 7 February 2018.
COMMITTEES
Environment and Communications References Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Environment and Communications References Committee—Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup Peninsula—extended from 7 February to 14 February 2018.
The PRESIDENT: I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. We will move on to the discovery of formal business.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:14): At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move:
That consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5.30 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, on:
(a) Wednesday, 7 February 2018, to enable valedictory statements to be made relating to Senator Brandis; and
(b) Wednesday, 14 February 2018, to enable Senator Molan to make his first speech without any question before the chair.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Ovarian Cancer
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:14): At the request of Senators Bilyk and Polley, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month,
(ii) the focus for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month 2018 is hope and taking action to change the dire statistics of ovarian cancer,
(iii) ovarian cancer is still the deadliest women's cancer, and
(iv) every day, in Australia, four women are diagnosed with and three women will die of the disease;
(b) acknowledges the efforts of Ovarian Cancer Australia in its tireless effort to beat the disease and reduce the number of women being diagnosed by 25 per cent by 2025; and
(c) urges federal, state, territory and local governments to:
(i) take leadership in encouraging Australian women to become more aware of the signs, symptoms and risk factors of ovarian cancer, to know their family history and where to get help, and
(ii) create communities where people openly talk about ovarian cancer.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:15): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The coalition government is committed to tackling ovarian cancer. Today the Minister for Health has announced $3 million to support a new, groundbreaking project that helps women identify whether they are at risk of developing ovarian cancer. This builds on the $33 million we have already provided for dedicated research related to ovarian cancer since 2013. The Minister for Women has been an ovarian cancer ambassador since 2012 and, along with senators and members from other parties, has held an awareness event in parliament every year since then, the most recent of which was last night. The government is pleased that all sides of politics have come together to spread awareness of this horrible disease.
Question agreed to.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (16:16): At the request of Senator Smith, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that today, 6 February 2018, marks the 66th anniversary of the ascension to the throne of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II;
(b) notes that, in the 66 years since her ascension, she has continued to honour the promise made on the occasion of her 21st birthday to be devoted to the service of her people in Australia and across the Commonwealth;
(c) acknowledges the tireless and dedicated service Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has shown in her role as constitutional monarch; and
(d) notes that 2 June 2018 will mark 65 years since the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018
First Reading
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:16): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator BERNARDI: 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.
Second Reading
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:17): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This week marks the 9th anniversary of the Rudd Labor Government's infamous $42 billion stimulus package. The implementation of this package was a dark day in Australia's history where the economic surplus that the Howard Government had prudently built up over 11 years was scandalously frittered away. For the first time in nearly a decade, Australia's budget plunged into the red.
Before he was elected in 2007, Mr Rudd badged himself "Mr Austerity", saying at the time that, "This reckless spending must stop."
But it didn't.
The egregious examples of chronic waste under Labor's stimulus package are staggering. From over-priced classrooms and school halls — in some cases, built only to see the schools close soon afterwards — to the budget blowouts and tragic deaths resulting from the ill-fated Pink Batts Scheme.
The interest on the Rudd Government's ballooning debt kept growing. In this context, that government and this parliament — quite rightly — legislated a change to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act in 2008 to impose a debt ceiling of $75 billion.
However, the Labor Government — regardless of which leader was at its helm ¬maintained an unhealthy addiction to profligate spending. The Parliament approved the government raising the legislated debt ceiling to $250 billion in 2011, and again to $300 billion in 2012.
The election of the Abbott Liberal/National Coalition Government in 2013 was heralded as a watershed moment for Australia. The government had campaigned strongly on addressing the debt and deficit crisis.
Leaving aside some regrettable budgetary decisions and policy positions taken by that government, the Abbott Government were also frustrated by the obstructive Senate of the 44th Parliament dominated as it was then — and now in this 45th Senate — by an ideologically fiscal left-wing bloc of Labor, Greens and crossbench senators.
As senators who were here at the time would recall, the original bill introduced by the Abbott Government in the Senate on 14 November 2013 sought to raise the debt limit to $500 billion. Labor moved to amend that figure to $400 billion instead — a point worth noting and comparing with what position they take on this bill. It was implicit from the Australian Labor Party's behaviour in that debate, 4 years ago, that they had no problem with a debt limit then. Indeed, using their numbers the major parties agreed to raise the limit to that alternate $400 billion figure.
Then something odd happened. Between the Houses, the bill came back, and there was a deal with the Greens to agree to an alternate amendment on 5 December 2013 to repeal the ceiling altogether.
To quote the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as she was then and remains today, Senator Wong told the Senate on 5 December 2013:
"If you ever wanted an example of this government not being the government they said they would be, have a look at the deal today. From a government that said in opposition that they were against debt, and from a government that said they were the party of no debt, we now have a government of no debt limit. No debt limit! The party of no debt becomes the party of no debt limit! But even more extraordinary than that is the fact they have done this with the support of the Australian Greens."
On 9 December 2013, the matter returned to the Senate and in divisions, the Australian Labor Party voted against repealing the debt ceiling.
On that fateful day, with the support of the Greens, the Abbott Government raised the white flag on fiscal responsibility and the newly-amended bill repealed the legislated debt ceiling altogether.
Unsurprisingly, the budgetary blow-outs continued in a patchwork of reckless spending, totalling tens of billions of dollars, including a wish list of off-balance-sheet initiatives which crudely attempted to hide the true picture.
The measure used to track a debt ceiling, gross debt, now stands at more than $530 billion, in excess of 29% of gross domestic product (GDP). This ratio is far worse than the then-lofty heights set by the financially illiterate former Whitlam Labor Government. At the time Mr Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor-General in 1975, their debt-to-GDP level stood at 21.6%.
Thankfully, on 6 December 2017, the Senate agreed to my motion acknowledging the condemning and comparative Whitlam era and Turnbull era levels and, I quote,
"expresses its in principle support for legislative measures that will help chart a pathway to budget surplus achieved by reducing spending and waste, not by increasing taxes."
Naturally, on this subsequent sitting week I present the Senate with the prime means to charting a pathway to surplus, namely capping debt. This should not be received as a radical proposition — at least, not by members of the government — since the limit I have set exceeds the levels in the forward estimates. This measure puts the whole Senate on notice when considering legislation with budgetary impacts that it will have set itself a debt limit to work within.
Burgeoning Coalition Government spending and the accompanying interest payments show no signs of appreciably slowing down. It is time to put the brakes on — and fast — and this is how we do it.
A cavalier approach to intergenerational debt will have long-term consequences. Consider some of the European economies that could not restrain their spending and debt. To name just a few of the consequences, the EU saw economic collapse, urgent negotiations, the potential for other sovereign nations to foot the bill — and the domestic protest about the same. Not to mention the resultant intergenerational antagonism and other social problems.
Looking past the forward estimates, the latest government figures show we are heading for a mind-boggling debt of $684 billion in ten years.
This is simply unsustainable.
The Turnbull Liberal-National Coalition Government and those on the crossbench who might oppose this measure will — in doing so — be indicating they are on a unity ticket with Labor and the Greens' disregard for the cost of our ballooning debt and the long term consequences that come with it. Senators opposing this reform will be telling the Australian public — and future generations — that they want to make hay while the sun shines on their own bank accounts. As their pay increases thanks to the beneficence of the Remuneration Tribunal, they are saddling current and future generations with the bill to pay for spending commitments they won't be around to electorally answer for. Such members and senators want to kick the can down the road for future generations and future governments to deal with.
Our children and grandchildren deserve better. Australia deserves better.
After ten years of empty promises about a budget surplus being "just around the corner" we need a serious reality check.
The plain fact of the matter is, we are witnessing intergenerational theft on a grand scale which will see our children, our grandchildren and their children struggling to pay back a debt which is growing faster than it can be repaid.
The Parliament of Australia is awash with red — red ink and red politics — even from some of those allegedly occupying the right of the political spectrum. Few in this place — or the other place — know what a surplus looks like anymore.
Now we hear talk of 'pathways to surplus' which are as warm and fuzzy as `roadmaps to peace'. They sound like you're doing something, when you're not, because you can't secure the commitment of other parties to achieve the desired result.
There is never any serious debate or focussed effort on paying back debt — until today.
A Liberal backbencher observed recently:
`Well, in 2021, if we deliver a surplus of $7 billion and we do that every year for the next 100 years, we'll be able to pay back the debt that we've got by then.' A hundred year plan to pay for a decade of spendthrift waste.
I'm sorry, but that's as tricky as promising funding like `Gonski' or anything else beyond forward estimates. The only promises that matter are those that you have to deliver upon within forward estimates. In other words, if you are not accountable for your promise at the next election, then it is, at best, hot air and, at worst, dishonesty with the voters.
There is one iron law of economics: all debt must be repaid at some point. This responsibility falls to us, not our children. We must stop the debt explosion now, before it does irreparable damage to our economy.
The Coalition Government prefers not to talk about the fact that by 2020 there is going to be about $20 billion a year of interest costs. That amount of money each year would build many roads and hospitals, fund substantial tax cuts and strengthen our flagging economy.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy for successive Australian governments in their frenzied addiction to excessive spending, to pass the ticking problem down the line.
Instead of moving to fix the debt and deficit crisis once and for all, they are forcing us to impose a crushing tax burden on successive generations of workers to support the failure and irresponsibility of the current political class.
I urge the Senate to return to its fiscal senses and support the measures it once upheld, and support this bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Cricket
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:17): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the Australian Cricket team has defeated England 4-0 to regain the coveted Ashes,
(ii) that Australian captain Mr Steven Smith finished the series as the leading run-scorer compiling 687 runs for an average of 137.40,
(iii) that Mr Smith was named Player of the Series, and named the International Cricket Council's men's Test Player of the Year for 2017, and
(iv) the magnificent performance of the frontline bowling quartet of Messrs Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon, who between them took 87 wickets;
(b) congratulates the Australian team on its achievement; and
(c) acknowledges that cricket is one of Australia's key national sports and is part of the Sporting Schools Program which is funded by the Australian Government to ensure all school children have the opportunity to play sport.
Question agreed to.
Simmons, Professor Michelle
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:18): At the request of Senator Griff, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates 2018 Australian of the Year recipient Professor Michelle Simmons and all the recipients of this year's Australia Day Awards;
(b) notes that Professor Simmons is the 14th female recipient of the Australian of the Year in the Award's 58 year history;
(c) acknowledges that:
(i) the prize recognises Professor Simmons' research and leadership in nanotechnology and quantum computing,
(ii) in 2017, Professor Simmons established Australia's first quantum physics computing company, Silicon Quantum Computing, bringing together representatives of governments, industry and universities in an $83 million consortium based at UNSW,
(iii) Professor Simmons' focus and leadership has defined Australia's position in the quantum computing technology race, and
(iv) quantum computing technology is strategically important for Australia;
(d) wishes Professor Simmons, along with her team, every success in the international race to build a quantum computer and excel in the space race of the computing era;
(e) notes that:
(i) Science Meets Parliament runs from 12 to 14 February 2018, and
(ii) Science Meets Parliament builds on the strong tradition of fostering relationships and understanding between scientists, technologists, members of the House of Representatives and senators; and
(f) encourages all senators to attend events during Science Meets Parliament to enhance their awareness and understanding of STEM and help build connections with those working in the field.
Question agreed to.
Bowel Cancer
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:18): At the request of Senator Griff, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates all the participants of the People's Choice Undies Run for Bowel Cancer held on 14 January 2018 in Adelaide, with a record 1,611 participants;
(b) notes that:
(i) this year, the charity run raised over $145 000 for bowel cancer research and, since 2013, has raised over $865 000 for Cancer Council SA, significantly increasing the awareness of one Australia's largest cancer killers,
(ii) bowel cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women in Australia,
(iii) it is estimated that about 16 000 Australians will be diagnosed with bowel cancer each year, and over 4 000 will lose their lives to the disease each year,
(iv) regular screening is important because you can have bowel cancer without any noticeable symptoms,
(v) the average wait time for colonoscopies is up to 6 months across Australia,
(vi) South Australia has the longest waiting times in the country for colonoscopies with some people waiting up to 12 months,
(vii) these delays are putting patients at real risk, and
(viii) early detection of bowel cancer is crucial to the survival rates of sufferers – if detected early, 90 per cent of bowel cancer cases can be successfully treated; and
(c) calls on the Government to work with the states to reduce the waiting times for bowel cancer screenings.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:19): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: One of the coalition government's priorities is to build on Australia's world-leading cancer screening programs through the implementation of a bowel cancer national register that supports delivery of the best possible outcomes for all eligible Australians. The government will continue to work with all states and territories to improve patient access to much-needed services.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
Gordon, Mr Michael
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:19): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the passing of Mr Michael Gordon, veteran journalist with Fairfax, last Saturday,
(ii) that he was an outstanding journalist and a passionate defender of human rights,
(iii) that his coverage of refugees, Indigenous affairs and social justice was tireless, and he helped to shine a spotlight on the injustices of the most oppressed people in our society,
(iv) that he was deeply respected amongst his fellow colleagues, leading to a Walkley award for most outstanding contribution to journalism, and
(v) that he will be missed, not only for his invaluable contribution to his profession, but as a principled and compassionate man; and
(b) expresses its condolences to his family, and may he rest in peace.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Future Frigate Program
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:19): I, and also on behalf of Senator Carr, move:
That—
(1) The Senate notes that:
(a) on 4 September 2017, the Senate agreed to an order for production of documents directed at the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry for all unclassified portions of the Future Frigate tender documentation set;
(b) on 5 September 2017, the Senate agreed to an order for production of documents directed at the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry for, amongst other things, any other documentation held by the Future Frigate project that discusses Australian Industry Capability the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, and how Techport and other Australian facilities might be used in the program;
(c) on 7 September 2017, the Minister tabled a letter in response to both orders for production claiming public interest immunity, and stated that release of such documents would potentially damage national security, damage international relations and adversely affect the Department of Defence's negotiation position in respect of future contracts;
(d) on 12 September 2017, the Senate declared that it did not accept the minister's public interest immunity claim, and required either full compliance with the orders for production or that the minister attend the Senate at the end of question time on 13 September 2017 to provide the Senate with further explanation;
(e) on 13 September 2017, the minister gave a further explanation to the Senate claiming that release of the documents during an active tender would affect commercial arrangements that are able to be achieved during negotiations with any successful tenderer, damage national security, defence damage international relations; and
(f) on 25 January 2018, the Department of Defence released 292 pages of the Future Frigate Program in full to former Senator Xenophon – the public interest immunity claims asserted by the minister, were, in her own department's view, mistaken.
(2) Orders for the production of documents are a key Senate tool used to ensure effective oversight of Government and must be responded to by ministers with utmost consideration, care and accuracy.
(3) The Senate requires the minister to table documents in full compliance with orders for the production of documents nos 432 and 449 by the commencement of business on 12 February 2018.
(4) That the Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at 9am on 8 February 2018 to make a statement of not more than 20 minutes, addressing why the Senate should accept the minister's explanation as to why she made written and verbal claims to the Senate that her own Department has found unsustainable.
(5) That any senator may move a motion to take note of the minister's statement and any such motion may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all other government business until determined.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:20): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: Thank you. Release of the documents at the time was not in the public interest, as outlined by Minister Payne on 13 September 2017, as it may have compromised the future frigate request for tender evaluation. As the tender evaluation component of the SEA 5000 procurement process is now complete and the offer definition improvement phase is currently underway, the government will review the documents and make those sections available if appropriate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
National Broadband Network - Joint Standing
Government Response to Report
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:21): I, and also on behalf of Senator Urquhart, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 16 May 2011, a United Nations Special Rapporteur report declared that Internet access is a human right and recommended that "each State should thus develop a concrete and effective policy, in consultation with individuals from all sections of society, including the private sector and relevant Government ministries, to make the Internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all segments of population",
(ii) on 27 September 2017, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network released its first report with 23 recommendations, based on 191 submissions, 15 public hearings, and testimony from 179 witnesses, and
(iii) on 16 January 2018, the Government released its response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, in which it rejected 9 of the recommendations and supported the remaining 14 recommendations in principle only; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) reconsider its response to the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, which proposes concrete and effective policy, developed in consultation with individuals from all sections of society, including the private sector and relevant Government ministries, and
(ii) work towards developing a national broadband network that is fast, reliable and future-proof, which will make the Internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all segments of the population in Australia.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:20): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The coalition government has committed to completing the NBN and ensuring that every Australian home and business has access to fast broadband as soon as possible at affordable prices and at least cost to taxpayers. The government's statement of expectations to NBN is explicit in requiring that all premises in Australia will have access to fast broadband of at least 25 megabits per second and 50 megabits per second for 90 per cent of the fixed line network. The coalition government has put the NBN on track for completion by 2020. In 2013, there were up to 1.6 million premises throughout Australia which had poor or no fixed broadband connectivity. Today more than 6.2 million premises can access an NBN service.
Question agreed to.
Environment and Communications References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:23): I, and also on behalf of Senator Urquhart, seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 669, relating to the government response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on Australia's video game industry.
Leave granted.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:23): I move the motion as amended.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the unanimous findings of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee, Game on: more than playing around –The future of Australia's video game development industry, received on 29 April 2016,
(ii) that, on 13 June 2017, the Senate agreed to a motion moved by Senator Ludlam, requiring the Minister for Communications to table the Government's response by no later than 3 pm on 14 June 2017,
(iii) that, on 24 October 2017, Senator Fifield stated at supplementary budget estimates in response to questioning by Senator Urquhart that processes for a whole-of-government response were ongoing and included his input,
(iv) that, on 5 December 2017, the Senate agreed to a motion, moved by Senator Steele-John and co-sponsored by Senator O'Neill, requiring the Minister for Communications to table the Government's response by no later than 3 pm on 6 December 2017,
(v) that, on 6 December 2017, the minister stated that a response would be tabled prior to the end of 2017,
(vi) (v)that, on 31 January 2018, the minister finally released the Government response, in which the Government notes five of the eight recommendations, does not support two of the recommendations, and supports one recommendation in principle only; and
(b) calls on the Government to reconsider its response to the Senate inquiry into the future of Australia's video game development industry, and support both the unanimous recommendations of the committee and the Australian video games industry.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:23): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the funding for the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) runs out mid-2019,
(ii) a Liberal Government policy change is preventing the CRC from reapplying for funding to allow them to continue their research,
(iii) at least 70 jobs in Hobart are on the line if the Antarctic CRC is not able to reapply for funding,
(iv) the lack of clarity about the future is putting pressure on scientists to leave Hobart for job security, and is impacting on planning and implementation of research projects, and
(v) the work undertaken by the CRC is critical to help Australia and the world to understand current and future potential impacts of climate change; and
(b) calls for the Government to reverse its CRC policy decision that prevents the Antarctic CRC from reapplying for funding.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:24): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government opposes this motion. The coalition government is providing record funding for Antarctic research and infrastructure through its $2.2 billion Australian Antarctic Program. This includes $1.9 billion on the Antarctic icebreaker, $200 million for AAD's operations and $55 million for overland traverse capabilities and initial work for year-round aviation access. This investment will ensure Australia remains an international scientific leader in the Antarctic region. The government is currently considering a review of the governance of Antarctic science, conducted by Drew Clarke AO PSM, and is also assessing the most appropriate arrangements for the funding of Antarctic science. The government will release its response to the Clarke review in due course. Antarctic science funding is subject to the usual budget process.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:25): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: It's fine to invest money in shiny new ships and buildings, cut ribbons at election time and fly the Prime Minister down multiple times to make announcements. What we need investment in, in Tasmania and in Hobart, is the people. We have a situation where up to 80 scientists and their families—an absolutely integral part of our scientific community in Hobart—are facing a funding cliff at the end of this year, after nearly 15 years of funding research. And it's not just climate research; it's research on the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic. The projects the scientists are working on are globally collaborative. This is absolutely critical. The single biggest issue in Southern Tasmania at the moment is: where is the money that we need to give these scientists certainty so that they don't leave and go elsewhere? It's about time your government took science funding seriously and stumped up what you're going to do about science funding both in Hobart and in Australia.
Question agreed to.
Schools: Smartphones
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:26): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) warnings from experts that smartphones are diluting students' focus in the classroom and curbing students' social skills,
(ii) smartphones can be used by students in order to engage in cyberbullying,
(iii) that, since the Office of the eSafety Commissioner was established in July 2015, it has resolved approximately 670 complaints in relation to cyberbullying,
(iv) complaints to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, in relation to cyberbullying, increased by 63 per cent between 2015-16 and 2016-17, and
(v) that, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner reports that, in the 12 months to June 2016, 8 per cent of children and 19 per cent of teenagers were cyberbullied; and
(b) calls on state and territory education ministers, in consultation with the Federal Government, to develop clear guidelines to prevent inappropriate use of smartphones in classrooms.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:24): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: While states and territories are responsible for bullying policies in schools, the Australian government believes that bullying is unacceptable. The government supports measures that help young people to be better educated about appropriate online behaviour and to be aware of the consequences of cyberbullying. This includes the 'Bullying. No Way!' website, the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence and the Student Wellbeing Hub website. The eSafety Commissioner's website provides online safety advice, an online helpline and tips to keep children safe using social media, search engines and online games. The commissioner provides classroom resources, funds certified online safety programs in schools and administers a complaints system that removes harmful material.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Economics References Committee
Reference
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:27): I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018:
The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference to:
(a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
(b) how the need for 'broad community support' has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
(i) the definition of 'broad community support', and
(ii) how 'broad community support' has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
(c) how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
(d) whether and/or how the Government's 'community benefit program' payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
(e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; and
(f) any other related matters.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:28): I seek leave to make a short statement
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government does not support this inquiry, as the information being sought is largely available on the department's website. The government is now assessing three possible sites in two communities for their social and technical suitability to host a national radioactive waste management facility. This has been done following a voluntary and fully transparent, community-driven process, consistent with the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. The government's focus is on local communities and the traditional owners, but it also includes the broader community. The Minister for Resources and Northern Australia has advised that he would be happy to provide a briefing on this project to any senator or member.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Patrick, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:33]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (16:36): I advise senators there are two matters remaining to be dealt with which may have divisions, and I will be ringing the bells for one minute.
MOTIONS
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:36): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the recently released Mind the Gap report, a collaboration between the University of Sydney and Community Mental Health Australia;
(b) recognises that the report is based on the experiences of 58 expert stakeholders across Australia, and builds on the work of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Productivity Commission;
(c) acknowledges that, as outlined in the report, there are gaps in the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for people with psychosocial disability; and
(d) urges the Federal Government to urgently address this issue by implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition, including assertive outreach to ensure people with psychosocial disabilities are able to access the NDIS and through ensuring mental health services for those not participating in the NDIS.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government is considering its response to the committee's inquiry. It would be inappropriate to pass this motion until this process is concluded.
The PRESIDENT: The question is the motion moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:37]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Mining
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:40): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with concern:
(i) the Adani Group's proposed Carmichael coal mine, which would see 2 billion tonnes of coal dug up over 60 years,
(ii) the amount of carbon pollution sourced from the Adani mine would significantly contribute to dangerous global warming, and further endanger the Great Barrier Reef,
(iii) Adani company's history of corruption, tax-dodging and environmental malfeasance in their operations overseas, and now evidenced in Australia by recent accusations that Adani falsified a report into wetland pollution at Abbott Point,
(b) further notes that over 65 per cent of Australians oppose Adani's Carmichael coal mine, according to polling conducted on 25 January 2018; and
(c) confirms that Adani's Carmichael coal mine should not proceed.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Acting Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Labor has argued that the Adani mine needs to stack up both environmentally and economically. We have serious concerns about its impact on the environment, particularly the surrounding water tables. The project is yet to get financing. The most recent reporting about tampering with data is very concerning and should be investigated by the government. We note that this motion could have no practical effect under the EPBC Act.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:41): I can't help myself. I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: I don't think I have ever heard more weasel words in a one-minute statement than I heard then. I know that Mr Shorten has indicated that he's become sceptical in recent days about the Adani mine. It's interesting. He wasn't sceptical when the consensus from the international scientific community was that if we went ahead with Adani we would lose the Great Barrier Reef. He wasn't sceptical then. He wasn't sceptical when we put to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party the record of corruption and of environmental damage done by Adani. He was not sceptical then. He was not sceptical when it became clear that there was an immense threat to the Great Artesian Basin. His scepticism seems to have been triggered by something called the Batman by-election. That's where his scepticism comes from. It comes from knowing that within a matter of weeks the people of Batman are going to make a decision about whether they want to see the Great Barrier Reef saved and Adani stopped. It's cynical, and he should stop it now. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 672 standing in the name of Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
The Senate Divided. [16:43]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Asylum Seekers
The PRESIDENT (16:47): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, four proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator McKim:
Pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The inhumanity and cruelty of Australia's offshore detention system, and the need to evacuate to Australia the men, women and children detained on Manus Island and Nauru.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:48): Despite having been repeatedly asked not to bring the facts about Manus Island and Nauru into this chamber, I have continued to do that. The Australian Greens have continued to do that, and I want to do it again today.
It is now more than five years since the Australian Labor Party reopened the Manus Island detention centre and the Nauru detention centre, and more than four long years since the Abbott government began turning around desperate people at sea, abusing their human rights, trampling on their freedoms and liberties, and exiling them, as Australia's political prisoners, to Manus Island and Nauru. Amnesty International has described the treatment of some of these refugees and people seeking asylum as tantamount to torture, and the Australian Greens agree with that assessment. We see the sick pleasure that some coalition senators, including the newly minted Senator Molan, one of the authors of the disgraceful offshore detention regime, seem to draw from the misery they are inflicting on innocent men, women and children in detention.
But it is the Australian Labor Party's cowardice on this issue that has given the coalition a blank cheque for the unspeakable cruelty it is perpetrating on refugees and people seeking asylum. In fact, if the Labor Party had shown an ounce of decency on this issue at any time in the last five years, the situation would not have deteriorated into the human rights calamity that it is today. The people of Australia are heartsick and disgusted at what is being done in their name, and millions of them are demanding that the situation be resolved.
Despite years of ineffective hand-wringing from some members in the Australian Labor Party, that party's policy position has only hardened and solidified—just like their hearts. Their motivation is actually not relevant here. Remember, it was Kevin Rudd who declared that no person who arrived by boat would resettle in Australia, and that remains the case today. How can the Australian Labor Party continue to sit on their collective hands after all that they have seen and all that has been revealed in this chamber and in innumerable Senate inquiries championed by the Australian Greens?
The ALP candidate for Batman, Ms Ged Kearney, has said recently that she accepted the reality of Labor's policy despite previously speaking out against it. Well, what she calls an 'acceptance of reality' we call a 'denial of humanity'. It's a retreat into cowardice. It puts the safety and protection of thousands of innocent men, women and children behind base political priorities. Because despite Ged Kearney and other Labor members muttering reasonable and nice words about the issue, the only thing that actually matters is how they vote in this place. It's votes in the parliament that determine the government. It's votes in the parliament that determine our laws. And it is votes in the parliament that can evacuate Manus Island and Nauru and bring those innocent people here to Australia.
But they won't vote for that because they're beholden to the ALP's factional machine. Despite all the horrors and despite all the cruelty that we've seen, Labor has only moved further away from decency on this issue. They repeatedly refuse to support any efforts in here to evacuate the men, women and children from Manus Island and Nauru and bring them here to safety and freedom in Australia. Ms Kearney has confirmed she's going to line up with Peter Dutton; she's going to line up with the LNP to keep people locked up on Manus Island and Nauru.
People in offshore detention cannot afford to wait for this mythical change from within the Australian Labor Party, and reassuring words offer them no hope whatsoever. People will not be freed from Manus Island or Nauru by electing hand-wringers from the Australian Labor Party. The only way to green up the ALP is to vote Green. It's the only language the Labor Party understands. If we are going to close the camps and bring those innocent people—those desperate people, who only want two things: freedom and safety—to Australia, we need votes in this parliament now. We need people elected to this parliament who are prepared not just to talk the talk but to walk the walk, and the only way that we are going to get that is to elect more MPs who will vote to evacuate Manus Island and Nauru, and who will vote to end the horrors of offshore detention. In Batman, that can only mean a vote for the Greens.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (16:54): Excuse me, Madam Acting Deputy President, I've got to stop laughing. Can I say to the previous speaker: well, what a refreshingly different speech. In fact, I almost think it might be a speech that Senator McKim copied from me because, for years, I've been saying, 'Don't blame the coalition,' as Senator McKim always does, 'blame the people who set it up, the Labor Party.' Of course, Senator McKim's never understood that point until Batman comes along. The rank hypocrisy of the Greens was shown in that speech supposedly concerned about people they call distressed and disadvantaged on Manus and Nauru, but there was not a word about them, only about the Batman by-election and the huge fight they're having with the Labor Party for that particular seat. I cannot believe that any party claiming any responsibility or honesty could, for years, have sided with the Labor Party.
You'll recall, Madam Acting Deputy President Kitching, that it was the Greens that kept in power the Labor Party, which set up Manus and Nauru. Congratulations, Senator McKim—when you said you were going to deliver some facts, I laughed audibly—you did deliver some facts, but it is the first time you have ever, ever, ever accepted the reality: it was the Labor Party who started Nauru and Manus and they were supported by the Greens political party. The Greens political party come with dirty hands to this debate and always have.
I can only simply chuckle to myself how this speech supposedly on humanitarian efforts in Nauru and Manus turned entirely on the Batman by-election, with no pretence made. Senator McKim, in one of his rare honest speeches, admitted that it was all about voting Green in the Batman by-election. One of the great benefits for me is that I don't have to vote in Batman—because I just don't know who I could vote for if my party didn't stand a candidate.
On the basis that this might have been a sensible debate about Australia's migration policy over the years, I did want to mention some real facts: under the Labor government, supported by the Greens' political party—it was a Labor-Greens alliance, you might remember—50,000 people arrived on over 800 boats; there were 1,200 deaths that we know of; over 8,000 illegal migration arrivals—children—were detained while Labor and the Greens were in power; and, at the height of the policy failure of the Labor and the Greens' political parties at that time, there were 10,201 people held in detention, including 1,992 children—
Senator Williams: Ten thousand?
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes, 10,000, and almost 2,000 children. They were forced to open 17 new detention centres at huge cost to the Australian taxpayer to deal with the influx of these illegal arrivals, and an $11 billion border protection blowout happened under the Labor-Greens policy on illegal migration arrivals. That all changed from the Howard days, when there were no children in detention and, since the advent of a coalition government, all of those children have been taken out of detention. Mind you, as the coalition was getting rid of all those children, the Human Rights Commission and Professor Triggs decided they would have an inquiry into the children in detention. They didn't bother at the height of Labor's failures and the Labor-Greens failures, when there were almost 2,000 children in detention. When the coalition had got that down to about a thousand—now it is zero—the Human Rights Commission started to have this big inquiry into children in detention. They didn't bother when the Labor-Greens policy had put them all there.
I'm delighted that, since the advent of the coalition government, the illegal arrivals have stopped completely. There's not been one IMA boat into Australian waters in that time. That has meant that there have been no deaths at sea. It also means that the people smugglers who made a fortune out of bringing in IMAs to our country have all but gone out of business. The people smugglers knew their business. The would-be illegal immigrants to Australia paid a lot of money to fly from wherever to Malaysia or Indonesia. They then paid the people smugglers at least $15,000 per person—they weren't poor people—to try and come into Australia illegally.
Australia and Australians have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to our refugee policy. Per capita, we are up there amongst the most generous in the world. We actually look after genuine refugees who wait for years in squalid camps around the world, waiting for their turn to get to the promised land of Australia, and we take in about 15,000 each and every year. But these people that the Greens support, and the people smugglers that apparently the Greens support, were jumping the queue, meaning those in the squalid camps overseas were left to wait another year for their chance to reach utopia.
All of this was supported by the Greens political party, who now want the people of Batman to think that they are the only ones that are pure as far as this is concerned. I would love to have a look at the political donations to the Greens political party one day in detail and see the source from overseas of some of their support, because I do know this: the people smugglers have all but been put out of business, and it's cost millions and millions of dollars to their business model. Their only supporters, their real supporters in Australia, have been the Greens political party. One always wonders whether the people smugglers are not rewarding those who help their business model in Australia.
The Labor Party is equally guilty. But it was the Labor government—with Greens support, I emphasise—who did actually return to the Howard-years solution by saying to people, 'You might try to get to Australia, but you're not going to end up here.' That has stopped those jumping the queue. It's allowed us to take genuine refugees from the squalid refugee camps right around the world and bring them into our country, where they are welcome. We take more per capita than any other country in the world. And, most importantly, we don't have at least 1,200 people—that is the number that we know of—drowning at sea. The Labor Party returned to the Howard government solution. They didn't do terribly well with it, but, with the change of government to the coalition government, we have stopped the boats and stopped those deaths at sea. For some reason, the Greens don't seem to think that's good policy.
We do what we said we'd do. Those people on Manus and Nauru are well treated and they are given every assistance—better assistance than many Australian disadvantaged people. They are looked after, but they know they will never come into Australia while this government is here. Their only hope is for the Greens and the Labor Party to get back into power. Then they and the people smugglers— (Time expired)
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (17:04): It's really important to note at the outset that the factual position of the Labor Party was contained in a motion on 14 November 2017 carried by 31 votes to 28 in this chamber. That motion clearly and succinctly set out the position of the Australian Labor Party. It reads:
(a) acknowledges the failure of the Abbott-Turnbull Government to manage offshore processing arrangements and secure other third country resettlement arrangements for eligible refugees;
(b) notes the United States of America refugee resettlement agreement will resettle up to 1250 eligible refugees from Manus Island and Nauru but that some eligible refugees will miss out on the opportunity to resettle in America;
(c) acknowledges that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced an agreement with Prime Minister John Key on 9 February 2013 at the annual Australia-New Zealand Leaders' meeting that:
(i) New Zealand would resettle 150 refugees annually from Australia, including refugees from Manus Island and Nauru, and
(ii) the first refugees would be resettled in 2014;
(d) notes that, if former Prime Minister Tony Abbott had not withdrawn from the agreement, as many as 600 refugees would have been resettled in New Zealand by now;
(e) acknowledges the inquiry and report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus, and in particular, recommendation 7: 'The committee recommends that the Australian Government give serious consideration to all resettlement offers it receives, including the Government of New Zealand's offer to resettle refugees from Papua New Guinea and the Republic of Nauru. Further, if particular resettlement offers are considered unsuitable, the Government should clearly outline the reasons';
(f) notes that New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has renewed the offer to Australia to resettle 150 refugees from Manus Island and Nauru;
… … …
(h) calls on the Turnbull Government to immediately accept New Zealand's offer to resettle refugees from Manus Island and Nauru and begin negotiating appropriate conditions, similar to the United States refugee resettlement agreement, to ensure people smugglers do not exploit vulnerable people.
So our position is exceedingly clear. It was carried as a resolution of this chamber as late as November of 2017.
We can go around and around this argument as many times as you like—and Senator Macdonald and others can regurgitate their version of history and the failures of previous government—but the simple reality is that you've had five years in office and we have had a continual problem in this area. Really, there are two ways that we can sort this out. We can resettle them somewhere else or we can leave them as they are, in circumstances which—whilst Senator Macdonald will contest—don't appear to be ideal, or at the very least do not appear to be conducive to proper outcomes for mental health and the like. There can be many reasons for that. You can say it's the Greens party's problem for whipping up their expectations, but the reality is that I don't think the situation in Manus Island and Nauru has contributed to Australia's international reputation.
I had a very close look at the situation in Nauru when I chaired the inquiry into the allegations over there, and it was very, very clear that there were circumstances which challenge propriety, governance and fair play. When the government of Nauru throws out the Australian Federal Police representative for some advice they didn't welcome, when a magistrate has his visa removed for some advice that the government of Nauru didn't welcome and when we continue to pour unaudited quantities of money into Nauru, it is simply not good enough. We know—and there has been some media speculation and actual evidence on this—that we can spend up to $600,000 or $700,000 on each one of these people, keeping them in what are allegedly pretty miserable conditions.
Labor believes in strong borders. We believe in offshore processing. The regional settlement was the initiative of the Labor government. We believe in boats being turned back where it is safe to do so because it does save lives. We all watch the news. I have travelled through Italy and I have travelled through Europe, and people are making that perilous journey on unsafe boats. The Italian coastguard is doing an exemplary job saving people's lives. We know that this is an international economic problem.
I do applaud Senator Macdonald's comments about the great work Australia has done with the humanitarian intake. Per capita, we are probably one of the best in the world at that. We do it exceedingly well. I have travelled to Mount Gambier and been at citizenship ceremonies where the Karen refugee community in that area—all speaking English, all working and their kids excelling at school—have actually been absorbed into a regional community area with tremendous success. In the suburb I live in, the Afghani Hazara community have revitalised half a kilometre of Prospect Road with their business acumen and investment. They are doing great things. So we all acknowledge that refugees come here and contribute, but there has to be a process by which they come here and contribute, and people smugglers shouldn't be part of that process. We just don't accept that you should be able to fly, buy a ticket or come in on a boat.
We both have this problem. Ironically, as I have said here before, it's been on the agenda since 1 July 2011, I think the first day I was here. Senator Cash, on this side of the chamber, was articulating well what her view of the world was—sometimes a little shrilly, but she definitely put her point of view forward strongly. What we need to do here is resolve this. I don't think it's going to be resolved like an impasse at chess, where, 'Unless you go back to Iran,' who won't take you, 'you're not coming this way.' We have an offer from New Zealand, we have an offer from the United States and we have offers from other parts of the region. The government needs to be more proactive and diligent, and resolve this issue.
I accept the fact that we never want to have a resurrection of the boats. No-one wants to go through that awful tragedy off Christmas Island. There are people in this parliament who contributed in that inquiry who are still affected by that evidence. So we don't resile from the fact this is a really difficult issue for the parliament as a whole, but I think it is about time that all of the parties in this place tried to get common ground. We shouldn't be seeking the things that keep us apart; we should be looking for the things that bring us together and get closer to resolving this issue, whether it's getting the Trump administration to quicken the process and those genuine refugees being allowed to resettle in the United States and get on with their lives, or in New Zealand and get on with their lives. I think the hard-edged political factors in this are not conducive to good people outcomes.
I really don't think it is relevant to mention the electorate of Batman as some sort of panacea for this. If we do get a successful candidate for the Greens party in Batman, that will be the wish of the people of Batman. But it's not going to resolve anything in here. It is not going to resolve anything in here; it may bring another voice to their side of the table, but if that's a voice of disunity or of noncooperation and not trying to work through the problems and get resolution, then that's not really what should be promulgated by Senator McKim and his party. Electing one Greens person in Batman will not do one iota for resolution for people who are struggling to find resolution in Manus Island and or Nauru.
What we do need is a more collegiate effort in the parliament to get both sides—all sides; the four sides in this argument—to put together a genuine Australian position that restores our international reputation to where it should be: at the absolute peak. We have done this really well in the past. We have done humanitarian stuff really well in the past, and the cooperation that's been exhibited by Indonesia and others in these areas is exemplary. We should double our efforts in those areas. We should resolve this problem and take these people; it is a real stain on our reputation.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (17:14): I am continually astounded by the depth of the depravity and inhumanity of this government in its treatment of the most vulnerable people: refugees and people seeking asylum. And the justification for this cruelty, such as we just heard from Senator Macdonald, is a stain on our country. These are our fellow humans. They are simply seeking safety and a future for their families. It is shameful and it has gone on for far too long. Of course, it's not just the government that should be ashamed. We've just heard Senator Gallacher be an apologist for ongoing, indefinite incarceration of asylum seekers on the offshore hellholes of Manus Island and Nauru. The Labor Party must also recognise its key role in this. The Labor Party and the government are equally responsible for the cruelty and inhumanity of those offshore camps.
In the face of this cruelty and bigotry there are, however, some windows of hope. In my home state of Victoria people are undertaking determined, hopeful actions, in the face of this regime, to drive change and signal Australia's true values of care and compassion. Both major parties should take heed. Victorians are exercising their voices, and they'll continue to do so at the ballot box. One local council, the City of Darebin, which lies within the federal seat of Batman, has fearlessly demonstrated its support for refugees and asylum seekers. In December last year, council resolved to write to the Prime Minister to express concern regarding the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Australia's offshore detention camps. Mayor Kim Le Cerf stated that all levels of government must meet their humanitarian obligations to support asylum seekers and refugees. She called on the federal government to close the offshore detention camps on Manus Island and Nauru and immediately bring the refugees and asylum seekers to Australia for resettlement. I also note that Darebin is a refugee welcome zone, where refugees successfully settle and receive support in the community, and that Darebin council is a signatory to the joint statement on asylum seekers by Victorian local governments. There are many other Victorian councils and community groups that are providing leadership, humanity and a vision for a welcoming Australia; who are reflecting the values of their community and the wishes of ordinary Australians that refugees and asylum seekers be treated with compassion. I commend them all. It makes me proud to be a Victorian.
Both major parties should heed these community voices. I know a lot of good former Labor supporters who cannot abide the current parliamentary party's continued support for the fear based, cruel regime we have in place, so I say to my Labor colleagues in this place: there is always room to recognise these humanitarian options, but until you do Australians will struggle to believe that you are ever true to your purported values of fairness and equality. In a few short weeks the residents of the Batman electorate will get the chance to send a strong message to the Labor Party that they want action—no more talk, no more lip service, no more pussyfooting around on refugees. Labor talk tall on refugees and asylum seekers but in the end they always fall into lock step with the cruel policies of this government in a race to the bottom. The likely Labor candidate for Batman, Ged Kearney, tells us she's progressive. She tells us she will represent the people of Batman. She tells us she's a lifelong supporter of refugees and asylum seekers. Indeed, I commend her work and her previous advocacy. But since becoming the likely Labor candidate she's already fallen into line with party policy. She now says Labor's position on boat turnbacks and offshore detention has been adopted at the party's national conference and 'as a candidate and hopefully member of the Labor caucus, that's a reality I accept.' Well, that's not good enough. 'A lifelong advocate for refugees,' she says. 'That's the reality I accept'—a reality of cruelty, inhumanity and indefinite detention in these offshore hellholes. That's not a reality that the people of Batman accept, and it's not a reality that Alex Bhathal, the Greens candidate for Batman, accepts.
When you're given the honour of being an MP or a senator, what matters is how you vote, not your supposed lifelong advocacy for refugees and asylum seekers, not how much you say you're going to change the party from within and not what realities you accept. What matters is how you vote. And the people of Batman deserve someone who believes that how they vote matters. Alex Bhathal is a lifelong advocate for refugees and asylum seekers. She will vote, as the member for Batman, to end the cruelty of offshore hellholes, she will vote to end boat turnbacks and she will vote to end indefinite incarceration, because Alex Bhathal knows that what matters to the people of Batman is how she votes in the parliament as their representative. I have hope for a day when this cruel, inhumane, secretive and, frankly, globally shameful treatment of refugees and asylum seekers will end. We must never stop highlighting its horrific impact on people. Australian community members won't be silent, and the Greens won't be silent, because the current cruel and inhumane asylum seeker and refugee policies are not a reality that the Greens accept.
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (17:21): Again, this is not my first speech. I'm rising to speak to oppose the matter of public interest that's been addressed by a number of speakers before me, and I remind the Senate that the title of the MPI that we're looking at today is:
The inhumanity and cruelty of Australia's offshore detention system and the need to evacuate to Australia the men, women and children detained on Manus Island and Nauru.
That's extraordinarily emotive language—'inhumanity' and 'cruelty'. When I read it, I wondered where I'd heard it before. I don't have to go back very far in my extraordinary political career to remember where I have heard it before, because yesterday someone called McKim—I'm not too sure whether it's our McKim or any McKim—tweeted a tweet against me, calling me a racist first, which I take very, very seriously.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Order! Senator Molan, will you please resume your seat for a moment. Senator McKim, what's your point of order?
Senator McKim: My point of order is the respectful addressing of senators in this place.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I was listening intently. Resume your seat, Senator McKim. Senator Molan was referring to a tweet from an individual named McKim, and he said he doesn't know whether it was the McKim in the Senate or another. The point is he was referring to the information at hand. There is no point of order. Resume your seat.
Senator McKim interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there another point of order?
Senator McKim: Yes.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's this one?
Senator McKim: The tweet was sent from the official Senator McKim account, and it is identified—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Resume your seat, Senator McKim. I've made the ruling. The ruling is consistent with the standing orders. Senator Molan.
Senator MOLAN: I thank Senator McKim because he's clarified that point. He goes on and brags about the cruelty of offshore detention and he says that I revel in trampling rights and freedoms.
We all remember the situation, unfortunately, because it's not that long ago. We've been through this a number of times before. People will remember the Howard years. They'll remember Minister Philip Ruddock. They'll remember the Tampa incident and the involvement of the military in that. They'll remember offshore processing. They'll remember Christmas Island and they'll remember John Howard, who said that we decide who comes to this country and how they come to this country. And we did decide, fundamentally, because about 70 per cent of the people supported that decision. We did decide that, and the way that we decided was that we emphasised that, to come to Australia, you had to come in through a legal entry port. The method of arrival can be illegal even if you then claim refugee status. Of course, that was the reason that we used the term 'illegal maritime arrival' or its abbreviation 'IMA'. It was quite a legitimate abbreviation and quite properly used because their method of arrival was illegal and that's what it stands for. It stands for 'illegal maritime arrival'.
When Kevin Rudd arrived, he claimed that he would maintain John Howard's border policy and defence policies. As Prime Minister, he formed a committee to actually do something. Yes, committees are great for policy, but rarely are they any good for doing things. As a result of this, he failed to do anything with 15 or 16 government departments and agencies working through a committee, none of whom had ultimate responsibility and none of whom worked in accordance with management 101. It was guaranteed to fail from day one. The actions that that government took just made the situation worse.
It was roughly at this stage that I became involved in Operation Sovereign Borders. At that stage, I was assisting the then opposition with defence policy. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government had, during its period of time in government, been absolutely appalling on defence. It was a legitimate function for someone with some defence knowledge to actually try to assist the opposition to oppose them. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government saw the Defence Force as an ATM and drove down defence spending from two per cent to 1.6 per cent. They had no ships and no subs but were very good at pink batts and school halls!
The greatest thing we saw was the arrival of a consolidated and logical management 101 based technique for actually solving this extraordinary problem. Minister Morrison at the time was good enough to call me a co-author of Operation Sovereign Borders—something I am very, very proud of. But I suspect, in fact, that there were about four co-authors of Operation Sovereign Borders, so it's not an honour that I have to myself. Why did all this occur? After everything that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government did had not worked, the one thing that they left us with, as we were saying before—Senator Macdonald gave you the statistics of the number of children who were held in detention over that period of time, the highest number being almost 2,000 at any one time, along with 50,000 people off 600 to 800 boats—was an appalling situation. There were something like 30,000 people left in this country who were undocumented, and 1,200 drowned. What that left us with was an extraordinary problem. I have not heard anyone who was running the government or from the Greens, who were supporting the government at that time, take responsibility in any way, shape or form for those deaths. Senator Macdonald went through all those figures.
We had to pick up after that. The only thing that we were really left with that we then had to carry on overseas was offshore processing. The matter of public importance describes the system that we have as 'Australia's offshore detention system'. It's not an offshore detention system; it is an offshore processing system that has an element of detention in it. At the moment, there are no people in detention on either of those two islands.
The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government tried to stop the boats, but they couldn't do it. It cost us $11 billion for them to fail, so we did it for them. We did it for the people of Australia, who have consistently supported Operation Sovereign Borders and the strengthening of our borders at about 70 per cent in any poll that's been taken. We did it because this was a life-and-death issue. It is not as though we were solving an esoteric or abstract problem. This was a life-and-death problem—1,200 people had died. We did it because we are an immigrant nation and, as an immigrant nation, we must maintain confidence in our immigration system. Our people will not support 200,000 people coming to this country each year of which just less than 20,000 are under the humanitarian program. On top of that, in the last couple of years, we've brought in 12,000 Syrian refugees.
We must maintain the confidence of the people in our immigration system and we have done that. The migration system at the time that we took it over was being run by the people smugglers. That is an appalling situation. To subcontract your major migration policy to a bunch of thugs throughout the world—a bunch of criminals—is absolutely irresponsible, and we see the consequences of that every single day in the Mediterranean. The policy that we did not introduce in Australia still exists in the Mediterranean and people are dying in their thousands to this day.
Senator McKim: They're fleeing from Syria! They're fleeing from your wars, mate!
Senator MOLAN: If we control our borders, we can actually show Australians that, as a migrant nation, they can trust this government to implement the migration policy; therefore, we can bring in more people than we've brought in in the past. Controlling borders is a magnificent step.
Senator WILLIAMS: I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. There's no secret that Senator Molan is very new to this place. It is his second day here. Interjections are disorderly and I ask you to refer to the Greens to stop their interjecting and let him speak freely, at least till he gets some more experience in this place. After two days, I think it is very rude to be interjecting consistently with a new senator.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ): Thank you, Senator Williams. I just remind all senators to have courtesy when a senator is on his feet.
Senator MOLAN: Thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy President; and, Senator, thank you for your intervention. Here are the issues. The issues really are that the Australian people support Operation Sovereign Borders. Manus and Nauru is tough, tough policy. We acknowledge that. I have never met anyone who wants to keep people on Nauru and Manus. We are doing our best, through the US policy at the moment, to move people off Manus Island. Offshore processing is tough policy. There are no boats. There have been no successful boat missions and there have been no deaths because we turned them back—exactly that. We turned them back and they went back whence they came. That is the success.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator MOLAN: As a result of that, we are able to bring in 200,000 people a year in the migration policy because Australians support the migration policy, and that is absolutely critical. Of that number, a large proportion, 18,750, are under the humanitarian program, and that is critically important. So strong borders are humane. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Senate and colleagues, the reasons for success are turn-back, offshore processing and TPVs. Take one out and you'll kill people again.
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (17:33): Australian society would be so much poorer without the diversity of those who have come from every part of the globe. As a good global citizen and signatory to a number of human rights conventions, Australia has a responsibility to ensure that people are safe from violence and persecution when they seek our support. Until recent years, Australia had a proud history of providing that safety—that safe haven for those asylum seekers and refugees—and accepted them into our broader Australian community. But, unfortunately, for years now, Australia, as we know, has been indefinitely incarcerating men, women and children in offshore detention camps on Manus Island and Nauru. This policy, breaching our human rights obligations, is generating deserved criticism and even revulsion in Australia and overseas.
I note Senator Molan's contribution just now, and I ask him to educate himself about international law, about human rights law and about migration law, because if he did he would know very well that everyone has the right to seek asylum. Everyone has the right to seek asylum—to use labels like 'illegals' is simply showing your ignorance about the need to provide that and ensure that we are living up to what we have signed under international law.
I also urge those government senators to meet with and get a better understanding of the international development sector. ACFID, the Australian Council For International Development, went on a fact-finding mission in November last year. They went to PNG. They went to investigate the conditions of refugees and asylum seekers who were brought to Papua New Guinea by the Australian government and who remain under the Australian government's responsibility. ACFID produced a short preliminary findings report. As their report made clear, there are three key factors that are making this a protracted crisis: the four to 4½ years that people have been held by the Commonwealth of Australia in Papua New Guinea; the deterioration of mental health and, in many cases, their physical health and wellbeing due to the deprivation of freedom of movement, poor case management and a lack of settlement options; and the plain fact that the conditions and systems are not adequate to meet the needs of people with complex mental health and medical needs, which is being exacerbated now of course by the drawdown of services.
In January this year, Human Rights Watch, in their annual report, called on the Australian government to act on the serious shortcomings in its human rights record if it wants to be a credible leader on the global stage. And although Australia was elected last year to the UN Human Rights Council for a term of some three years, pledging to prioritise freedom of expression, indigenous rights, gender equality, good governance and national human rights institutions, Human Rights Watch noted that the Turnbull government was undeterred by UN calls to end offshore processing and maintained its cruel practice of warehousing asylum seekers in abysmal conditions, where detainees faced violence and unnecessary delays in medical care. This is all occurring in the Australian government's name—in the Commonwealth's name.
Indeed, January this year also saw extremely disturbing reports of a Rohingyan refugee, suffering an acute mental health crisis and a broken ankle requiring surgery, who had been waiting for more than a year to be transferred from Australia's offshore immigration centre on Nauru for medical treatment. This is just one example. Apparently, Australian Border Force have not yet made a decision on his transfer, despite Nauru hospital's overseas medical referral panel twice approving this refugee for transfer to Australia for treatment and repeated warnings from doctors on the island that he presents a medical emergency and cannot be cared for on that island. The circumstance of this Rohingyan refugee is not unique, and reports make that clear. The governments of Nauru and Australia have ignored doctors' recommendations and blocked medical transfers for nearly 50 people, including those women who have been raped on Nauru and then denied an abortion in Australia. The human rights abuses against people are horrific—against people who simply sought our protection, that right to seek asylum, that we have denied to so many people.
The worth of families is a fundamental principle of international and Australian domestic law. Australia is party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents and should grow up in a family environment where possible. But several departmental sources and sources on Nauru have confirmed to journalists that it is unofficial policy to use family separation to encourage refugees to return to Nauru after medical treatment overseas. Refugees have been told they must leave their children alone in offshore immigration detention in order to access life-saving medical treatment overseas.
There are still children inside the regional processing centre on Nauru, 18 months after the trumpeted deal with the US, which is an utter disgrace. The fact that only about 100 refugees have left the camps for the United States is not good enough and is just too slow. I support the findings in this ACFID report. I support the findings that go into the need to fast-track the processing of resettlement to the United States. Of course, even after that, it still leaves a number of people—including, at the moment, 150 children—in offshore detention with no prospects for freedom, 4½ years later.
Some of these people are, as I mentioned before, Rohingyas from Myanmar. Australians are well aware of the nightmare that has been going on since 25 August in Myanmar and Rakhine State, where the Myanmar military have killed and slaughtered thousands, resulting in some 688,000 people fleeing to Bangladesh. Despite this, the Turnbull government is offering Rohingya refugees in our offshore processing facilities money to go back to Myanmar. It is just unfathomable. Tim Costello, on his visit to Bangladesh and to Manus, said recently:
It was a surreal irony to meet Rohingya refugees who have been locked up on Manus while the Australian government simultaneously supports international humanitarian appeals to aid the Rohingya in Cox's Bazar.
I recently visited the Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh. I spoke to those distressed Rohingyas, who have experienced the worst atrocities—what the UN Human Rights Commissioner called 'textbook ethnic cleansing'. When I asked them, they did not want to go back to Myanmar. Yet, here is our government wanting to offer refugees who sought our protection money to send them back to Myanmar. The hypocrisy is just bizarre. At the same time we are giving $30 million to Bangladesh to support the Rohingya to stay out of Myanmar. Go figure! This is how ludicrous this government's policy is. It's just sheer, rank hypocrisy. So, I ask Senator Molan to please read ACFID's report, Refugees on Manus— (Time expired)
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (17:43): It is good to have the debate brought back to some basic facts and reality about what is happening on Manus Island and Nauru, and that the reality of people who are fleeing persecution, including in our region, is being put on the record. Somehow or other we are continuing to get this fiction that these people are just trying to rort some non-existent system. A textbook case of genocide is happening right now in our region, and people are fleeing that. Are they are supposed to just stay there and die? That is this government's idea of what they consider 'humane'.
Let's revisit the actual text of what we are discussing here today, a matter that is, very much, of public importance: the inhumanity and cruelty of Australia's offshore detention system.
Not a single word from the coalition speakers today in any way sought to suggest that it is anything other than inhumane and cruel on Manus Island or Nauru, except for the extraordinary statement from Senator Macdonald that these people are 'well treated'. Eight of them have died! Whatever you say about the regime under John Howard, Philip Ruddock and their successors, at least they managed to run an offshore detention regime that didn't involve people dying, people being murdered, people dying by blatant bureaucratic neglect. This minister in this country has to take ultimate responsibility for those things.
As people know, I've only recently come back into this chamber, but it was a terrible feeling of deja vu listening to some of the nonsense, from Senator Macdonald in particular. Literally 20 years ago when I first came here, the same lies were being said, and probably by the same speaker. And it's because those lies have been able to be repeated and take hold that these sorts of outrageous human rights abuses have continued to occur. This litany of lies still gets repeated today. It is not illegal to seek asylum; that is a simple fact, and to continue to assert otherwise is false. It is false to suggest anything other than: the vast majority of people are clearly refugees. That has been determined by our own grotesquely inadequate system of assessment on Manus Island and Nauru. It is totally false to say that Australia is the most generous country in the world when it comes to accepting refugees per capita. It is the same falsehood was said 20 years ago, and yet we had the grand, crowning lie today that somehow these people on Manus Island are 'well treated'. Unbelievable!
And there is the nonsense that somehow people have stopped drowning. What do you think happened to all of those Rohingya people, even before the genocide got put on to massive turbocharging by the Myanmar military? What do you think happened to them on those boats? Remember—those other countries in our region who followed Tony Abbott's lead and pushed them back out to sea. What do you think happened to them? Did they all, sort of, go back home and sit in their lounge rooms and say, 'Oh, well, we had a go and we missed out'. There is clear evidence. I know they're not interested in anything other than the fairytales that they continue to try and perpetrate for political advantage on the Australian people. There is clear evidence of thousands of people drowning in our region. But somehow or other that is not a matter of concern.
The simple fact is: of course we can't assist every person who is fleeing extreme danger, but there are some people that we can help now, and we certainly should not be inflicting extra harm, extra suffering, extra cruelty on those people. It does have to be said that those camps on Manus Island were reopened under the Labor government, and it was not—as claimed in another falsehood from Senator Macdonald—'with the support of the Greens'. It was clearly opposed by the Greens at the time, categorically and repeatedly.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator BARTLETT: Senator Macdonald perhaps hasn't been listening all that time, but I see he's back in the chamber and responding, so presumably he's heard me just this one time. So I can tell you: it was not true; you are wrong. Now you cannot not repeat at least one falsehood again.
The simple fact is there is an opportunity right now, as was stated by another speaker. Hundreds of those people could be and should be in New Zealand right now. Let's also not forget, in amongst all that history over the last 20 years, that there was a significant shift due to public pressure—community pressure, groups like Rural Australians for Refugees, and so many other people in the community, and some people back then in the Liberal Party who pressured the Howard government to change its policy—to bring those refugees here from Nauru, some of whom are now citizens, as others have said in this debate and have built strong lives in this country and are contributing effectively to this country. That position can be changed again, and I know community sentiment is shifting to stop this cruelty now.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ): The time for discussion of the matter of public importance has expired.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kiribati and the Kingdom of Tonga
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (17:49): by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Kiribati and the Kingdom of Tonga which took place from 25 June to 2 July last year. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the document.
Leave granted.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I am pleased to present the delegation report. I want first of all to thank my colleagues who formed that delegation, starting with my friend and colleague Senator Williams. The delegation also included Mr Steve Georganas, the member for Hindmarsh, and Mr Milton Dick, the member for Oxley. I particularly want to thank the delegation secretary, Mr Gerry McInally, who, as is the way with the secretaries who accompany parliamentary delegations, was excellent in his work, in his support for the delegation and in making sure that all the right doors were opened. I also want to thank the international and parliamentary relations element of this parliament for their support and to thank those who assisted us both in Kiribati and in Tonga. The delegation's visit was organised and supported by the Australian parliament's International and Parliamentary Relations Office. They, as any senators who have ever been on a delegation will know, do a wonderful job, as do the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The delegation, during most of its meetings, was accompanied by DFAT officers stationed at Kiribati and Tonga. The professionalism, knowledge and guidance of these officers were very much appreciated by every member of the delegation.
I also particularly want to express the delegation's thanks to the Australian high commission staff who assisted the delegation—in particular, in Kiribati, the Australian high commissioner, His Excellency Mr Bruce Cowled, and the first secretary and consul, Ms Kate Chamley, and, in Tonga, the Australian high commissioner, His Excellency Mr Andrew Ford, and the deputy high commissioner, Ms Rhona McPhee. I should as well thank the government officials and staff in both Kiribati and Tonga for their welcome and the way they dealt with the delegation.
Time is short. I just want to mention two things. I was delighted to see in Kiribati that, as a result of a lot of good work by Australia over many years past, particularly in the fishing area, Kiribati have really turned their budget around and they have now increased their revenue to around $200 million a year from selling their licences for day-long fishing to commercial fishermen. This accounts for some 70 per cent of Kiribati's annual income. Australia had a big part to play in setting up the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, with the Australian Pacific Patrol Boat Program, which assists very much in the monitoring of foreign fishing vessels in Kiribati waters, and also the Central Pacific vessel monitoring system, which again Australia had a lot to do with setting up, a decade or so ago. It was a wonderful visit and it was great to see some of the major battlegrounds of the Second World War in the Pacific.
On Tonga, the report says it all. I encourage people who are interested in those islands or Australian support there to read the delegation report. It was a very full program in Tonga. I just want to mention one thing that I don't think is mentioned in the report. On the last day that we were there, the high commissioner invited the delegation—unfortunately I was the only one who could make the travel arrangements to do this—to go and see the most significant thing that has happened in Tonga, I'm sure, for 10 years, and that was the annual rugby union match between Tonga and their archrivals from Samoa. I'm pleased to say, and I claim credit for the fact that the Australians were there in some presence with the high commission staff, that Tonga actually won that game; they hadn't done it before. Football diplomacy is very, very big in PNG and in the Pacific. It was great to be part of that, as well as all of the other very significant things we did, which are reported in the delegation's report. I recommend the report to the Senate.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:55): I would like to contribute to Senator Macdonald's tabling of the report. I thank him for his leadership and friendship. Mr Dick and Mr Georganas were also on that trip.
There is a lot we can do to help the Pacific region. In Kiribati, they have some serious problems.
Senator Rhiannon: Do something about climate change! That's what you should do!
Senator WILLIAMS: Are they going to be quiet? We'll ignore the Greens, won't we, Madam Acting Deputy President? So we won't get on to all the coal-fired power stations being built. We're not going to change the world. I just want to say this. They import a lot of their vegetables and fruit and, by the time they get there by ship, they're not that fresh. I think we could help them by showing them how to grow hydroponic food. I've talked to Minister Fierravanti-Wells about this. It would be a great assistance. Also, it's something small to us but big to them.
When we met with the health minister at the main hospital, at Tarawa—a hospital that caters for 50,000 people—they had just one wheelchair. I came back and spoke to friends, including Bob Neich, a great member of the Rotary Club in Inverell, a good member of the National Party too, and a good friend, I might add. He rounded up the wheelchairs, fully reconditioned, in Sydney, and in January they were sent over to Tarawa. The health minister accepted four wheelchairs, fully reconditioned by Rotary. It's something small, but now they have five wheelchairs at their hospital. We had a container go over there.
We need to help them grow food because they are importing so much food and it's just not fresh. Of course, there are other things they could do there. I'm sure Senator Macdonald was as amazed as I was: there's a real problem with litter and rubbish. There are car bodies everywhere, as well as nappies and rubbish.
I was very pleased to be part of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Hanoi, Vietnam, a couple of weeks ago. On the agenda for next year we should put: cleaning up the Pacific. There's no reason we couldn't clean it up. Look at Singapore. Singapore is renowned for its cleanliness. Don't throw the rubbish out for it to blow into the ocean. Don't throw it on the streets or whatever. We can do a lot to clean up the Pacific. We can do a lot more in Australia to do exactly that. As a former South Australian, I'm very aware of rubbish. The Keep South Australia Beautiful campaign is very successful.
The best thing we could do for the people in the Pacific is help them to grow food and grow their industries. Samoa has so much potential to grow coffee. The second-most demanded commodity in the world after oil is coffee, yet they have thousands of acres not being utilised. We could help them do that. I've tried to do exactly that over many years with little success, I can tell you. I'd like to see the government put about $500,000 forward, get an expert in hydroponics and set up a hydroponics system—not a big one but a good one to show the people at Kiribati how they can grow their vegetables. They're lacking land. We are fortunate in Australia and have plenty of land. Per capita, there are probably more acres of land than any other country in the world. I think we can help them immensely. They are great people. They were great hosts. I thank DFAT, the ambassadors and the high commissioners.
The Tongan people are also wonderful. As Senator Macdonald said, the rugby union match between Samoa and Tonga was a real highlight. I have seen two religions in the Pacific: one is Christianity and the other is rugby union, and I enjoy both of them very much. I wish them well. I hope we can continue to help our Pacific neighbours in any way we can. I thank Senator Macdonald for his leadership and his friendship on the tour.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Consideration
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (18:01): I rise to speak on the document listed as No. 8. Last December, the Senate passed a most important motion calling on the Commonwealth, the Turnbull government, to respond to a whole number of issues to do with the Williamtown contamination. There was one very important aspect to it that set out that they needed to address the financial impacts on businesses and individuals.
The report is deeply shocking. It really shows how out of touch this government is. It's really quite ruthless and it's uncaring. It is also the latest insult from the Turnbull government. The report is vacuous. It goes for a few pages, but there is nothing of use there for the people of Williamtown. After looking at it you came to the conclusion that the Turnbull government has given up on working to solve the Williamtown crisis, which it has created, arising from the contamination coming from the RAAF base. When we debate this we need to remember that. The Department of Defence has admitted total liability for the toxic run-off that has been polluting that area for years.
A little bit of history underlines how shocking this report is. We found out publicly about the contamination in 2015, but through estimates questioning we came to realise that, in fact, the department had known for much longer but had not told the public. Then there was an inquiry we were able to get set up in 2015. But at every stage, the government has not done the right thing by the people of Williamtown. One of the things that is so shocking is that contamination continues to pour off the base. This is a base that's incredibly important for Australia's defence: $900 million has been put into this base to upgrade it for the Joint Strike Fighter planes.
I've been to the Williamtown area on many occasions, and often the locals have said to me: 'Just one of those planes would allow us to get our lives back on track.' What they mean is that if the government didn't go ahead with buying all the Joint Strike Fighters—just gave up on one—but put the money into the needs of the people of Williamtown, they could pay compensation or buy out the properties of people who have been told that they can't eat their vegetables and shouldn't sell their cattle or, if they were running a business, whose business may have collapsed. If people want to sell up, they can't, because property values have crashed.
A humane and caring government would work with these people to either help address their immediate concerns so they can stay there, because some want to. But in the case of those in the red zone, which has been identified as the most contaminated, it would work with them so they could get out, but there has been nothing. It would be the decent thing to do.
This report is disgraceful. The closest we get to any details about the financial impacts is where the government lists a number of banks and financial institutions that its task force has met with. There is nothing about the details of those meetings. There is no information about any recommendations. All it offers us is more excuses—excuses that try to make out that maybe this contamination isn't that bad for your health after all. This goes against much of the United Nations work and international health studies that have identified various cancers linked with this contamination.
Another thing adding to the stress of the local people is that the contamination hasn't stopped coming off the base. One of the things that is so extraordinary is that action hasn't been taken to clean up the pollution on the base itself. Now, I acknowledge it's difficult to manage this. It's a water-soluble chemical. It gets into the water. It gets into the soil. It is dispersed quickly. The knowledge and the ability is there to contain it and then treat this area, but that hasn't been done. Meanwhile, this base has been given a massive upgrade for the Joint Strike Fighter pilots. What a contrast it is. This becomes a state-of-the-art base to wage war while the local people's lives are being devastated. And 'devastated' is not a strong enough word. Today's report has added more uncertainty, more insecurity, more sadness and more loss of hope. That is what the government has delivered with the report before us today. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
International Day of People with Disability
Consideration
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (18:06): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I hold in my hand a piece of paper. When it first arrived in my office, I took some convincing that it wasn't an act of satirical comedy. I must admit that I laughed for a couple of minutes straight. It is a letter from the Hon. Ray Williams MP of the New South Wales government, who happens to also be the Minister for Disability Services, outlining to the President of the Senate the many wonderful things that, in his opinion, he and the Liberal government of New South Wales are doing to support, promote and otherwise celebrate disabled people in that state. By all accounts, he seems quite pleased with himself and notes certain programs to increase things like employment for disabled people.
By the nature and tenor of the letter, it seems that Mr Williams is generally a fan of the idea of people with disabilities having their voices heard within communities and within governments more generally, so I find it highly ironic that this letter also comes from the minister who has consistently refused to guarantee to restore his government's funding to disability advocacy services in New South Wales. In his state, there are over 50 disability advocacy agencies whose primary role is to help give voice to disabled Australians, particularly in the context of the introduction of the NDIS, which is one of the most complicated social reforms since Medicare. Their role is to help ensure that disabled Australians in New South Wales have a voice, yet Minister Williams is content to sit by and allow these organisations and all of the institutional knowledge therein to go to the wall simply because he feels he now has an excuse to shift that budget line item off to the federal government.
It is a disgrace. I don't know where this man gets the cheek to write such a letter to the Senate in these circumstances. I would like to use this opportunity to call on him, once again, to rethink his decision and to fully fund and support disability advocacy services, both individualised and systemic, in the state of New South Wales. I thank the chamber for its time.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
Documents to be presented by the President
1. Access to unpublished committee documents—Report to the Senate— Parliamentary Library Committee relating to the 1948 acquisition of the Nan Kivell collection.
Government documents
2. Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights)—Report for 2016-17
3. Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)—Report for 2016-17.
4. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—Report for 2016-17 in relation to compliance with the statutory funding agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp).
5. Dairy Australia Limited—Report for 2016-17.
6. Dairy Produce Act 1986—Report for 2016-17 in relation to compliance with the statutory funding agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Dairy Australia Limited.
7. Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force—Report for 2016-17.
Responses to Senate resolutions
8. Contamination of defence force facilities—Resolution agreed to on 6 December 2017—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister (Senator McGrath), dated 5 February 2018, and attachment.
9. International Day of People with Disability—Resolution agreed to on 4 December 2017—Letters to the President of the Senate, dated 9 January 2018, from—
New South Wales Minister for Disability Services (Mr Williams).
Western Australian Minister for Disability Services (Mr Dawson).
Committee reports and government responses presented out of sitting for consideration today
1. Community Affairs References Committee—Value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs—Interim reports [2] and final report.
2. Environment and Communications References Committee—Shark mitigation and deterrent measures—Report.
3. Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program (CDP)—Report.
4. Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Delivery of National Outcome 4 of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children—Report.
5. Migration—Joint Standing Committee—No one teaches you to become an Australian: Report of the inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes—Report and corrigendum.
6. Senators' Interests—Standing Committee—Register of senators' interests incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations lodged between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2017.
7. Community Affairs References Committee—Final report—Prevalence of different types of speech, language and communication disorders and speech pathology services in Australia—Government response.
8. Economics Legislation Committee—Report—Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016 [Provisions]—Government response.
9. Economics References Committee—Report—Australia's general insurance industry: sapping consumers of the will to compare—Government response.
10. Education and Employment References Committee—Report—Penalty rates—Government response.
11. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Report—Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017 [Provisions] and Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017 [Provisions]—Government response.
12. Environment and Communications References Committee—Report—Game on: more than playing around – The future of Australia's video game development industry—Government response.
13. National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—1st report of the 45th Parliament—The rollout of the National Broadband Network—Government response.
14. Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—171st report—International Trade in Endangered Species – Amendments; Women in Combat Duties – Reservation Withdrawal; Generation IV Nuclear Energy – Accession—Government response concerning the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Flora and Fauna.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Corrigenda to Report
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:10): I present a corrigendum to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on the inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes.
Ordered that the document be printed.
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Report
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:10): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the report of the committee on the inquiry into decisions made by the Court of Disputed Returns.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator SMITH: I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Report
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (18:11): I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the provision of services under the NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention Approach, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator GALLACHER: I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I do—and I think Senator Macdonald mentioned Secretary McAnally—want to place on the record up-front the enormous good work that occurs in the secretariats of these very complex committee endeavours. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is probably one of the most significant pieces of public policy in generations or at least in recent memory. It is an extraordinarily complex area. I want to place on the record the extraordinarily good work that the secretariat does in resourcing the committee. Having been on the committee for a number of years and having worked with a number of chairs of the committee in the last five years—the Hon. Mal Brough, the Hon. Bruce Billson and now the Hon. Kevin Andrews have chaired that committee—I know it has been doing exceptionally good work in a very collegiate manner. Given the complexity of the endeavour, the committee has taken an approach to look at silos of work and to invite interested parties and organisations to make submissions in respect of relevant terms of reference in order to come up with good recommendations for the agency. This is another example of quite extraordinarily diligent work.
I recommend anyone in the early childhood sector look at the 14 recommendations. We did take abundant evidence. It's very, very clear that, if you have a child with disability in the early childhood sector, there are many, many different ways of approaching successful outcomes, and not all of those ways are generally accepted by all of the relevant professionals. We spoke to many groups who thought that these early intervention techniques were extremely critical to the ongoing success of children with disability. A view that was coherently understood and shared by, I think, the whole committee was: no-one knows the prescription for someone else's child's success in the early childhood area. There was a degree of concern about the way that the agency was using relevant, accepted tools to measure capacity, to measure the options in front of the parents and/or the organisations representing the children. So, we thought—very clearly—we should get the evidence in and test it with some relevant questioning. We would see if there were any supplementary submissions. Then the good work is always done by the very diligent secretariat, as they draw down all of that evidence into evidence based recommendations. It is a very robust committee, as most committees in this place are. The members of the committee then would go through all of the report as it's produced and agree on the outcomes.
I have to say, as the deputy chair, that we do not have a lot of contest. We don't have a lot of divergence of views. When the evidence is in and common sense presents itself, it's accepted across the board. I think it's another great example of a very good joint committee working collegiately and very well in disparate sectors of the disability area to produce evidence based recommendations for the agency. We hope—and are fairly confident—that we've produced a quality report which will ensure that there' ongoing improvement in this sector and ongoing success. We hope that children, parents and representatives in this sector will be able to pursue their dreams and goals and that we will have successful outcomes in this extremely important area. With every area of education or health, if you get it right in the early years, it's an early precursor and predictor of success in the ongoing years. So I recommend this report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Economics Legislation Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (18:17): I present the government’s response to the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Introduction
On 13 September 2017, the Government introduced a bill into Parliament to address an unintended consequence of Australia's anti-dumping system that allowed the possibility for foreign exporters subject to duties to subvert the review of measures process to undermine the system's remedial effects. The bill, the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017 (the Bill), was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee (the Committee) on 14 September 2017. The Committee published its report on the Bill on 6 October 2017. The Government response to the report can be found below.
Government response to the Committee's report
The Government thanks the Committee for its report and its recommendation that the Bill be passed by the Senate.
The Government is committed to an effective anti-dumping system as an essential component of ensuring free and fair trade, including in the context of Australia's membership of the World Trade Organization. The Government has implemented several tranches of significant reform to strengthen Australia's anti-dumping system since 2013. The Government's reforms have ensured the anti-dumping system provides suitable remedies against unfairly traded goods that cause injury to Australian industry. These reforms have increased the system's efficiency and transparency, and improved industry access.
The Government considers that engagement with Australian industry and other stakeholders is essential in undertaking ongoing refinement of the operation of Australia's anti-dumping system to ensure that the system remains contemporary and consistent with international trade rules. Accordingly, the Government is currently engaging with a broad range of anti‑dumping stakeholders to identify opportunities for further improvements to the system. The merits and limitations of any changes to the system will be explored by the Government.
The Government also thanks Senator Xenophon for his recommendation that the Bill be passed by the Senate and notes his suggested improvements to Australia's anti‑dumping system.
Over the past four years, the Government has implemented a number of policy and operational reforms to the anti‑dumping system to ensure that it continues to provide Australian industry with effective relief from dumped and subsidised goods. These reforms include measures to provide assistance for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in accessing the anti‑dumping system, such as improving the operation and increasing the resources of the International Trade Remedies Advisory Service. The Government has also implemented changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of anti‑dumping and countervailing investigations, including the implementation of a new investigations model, improvements to the conduct of verification, and adding further detail to the subsidies register. The Government also remains committed to the International Trade Remedies Forum (ITRF), the peak industry advisory body for the anti‑dumping system, and is currently considering the recommendations of its sub-committees on SME access, subsidies, and compliance and anti-circumvention. The Government will continue to engage with ITRF members on ways to enhance the system's operation through the active sub-committees on compliance and anti-circumvention and access to import data.
Environment and Communications References Committee
Report
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (18:17): With respect to document No. 2, the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee's inquiry into shark mitigation and deterrent measures, I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I'm incredibly proud of this committee report. I initiated this inquiry and I chaired this inquiry. The Environment and Communications References Committee did a fantastic job as a bunch—all of us together. We went around the country for nearly 15 months—seven hearings—collecting evidence on how we manage the risks of sharks and shark encounters in this country. No parliament in this country—in fact probably no-one anywhere, any stakeholder—has collected a body of work and put it together in a report like this. I think it's very timely, and it's a significant matter of public interest.
A lot of people know I'm a passionate surfer and I spend a lot of time in the water, and friends of mine ask me, 'Why?' They seem perplexed why I would want to protect sharks, especially potentially dangerous sharks, like white sharks. And I tell them the truth: shark bites or shark encounters are rare. They're always tragic when they occur—and they always will occur—but they're rare. And I tell them that the mitigation that we're currently using—the last-century mitigation methods of nets and drumlines—without a doubt kill protected marine life. In fact, they're weapons of mass destruction for protected marine life in this country. Tens of thousands of different marine species—dolphins, turtles, whales, protected sharks and other marine life—are caught in these shark nets, and they're unnecessary.
I support a phase-out of these lethal methods—and I mean lethal to sharks and marine life—because I also know, as was proven in this committee with the evidence we received, there is no evidence that shark nets and drum lines around this country make you safe. Nearly half the incidents involving sharks in this country occur on the inside of nets, and a number of sharks are actually caught on the inside of the nets. I think there were 27 different encounters with sharks on the inside of nets in this country. Luckily, none of them were fatal. That was, predominantly, from the evidence we heard, because they occurred on patrolled beaches where there were surf lifesaving clubs. In fact, the evidence we heard across the board was people don't necessarily die from shark encounters or shark bites; they die from loss of blood because there's no-one there to administer first aid.
I think a lot about the risks of sharks. My stance as a Greens senator, a surfer and a person is borne from years of being in the ocean and thinking deeply on this issue. I was out surfing with my son just a couple of weeks ago in Tasmania. We'd had a fairly flat summer. We hadn't had a lot of time in the water, but we had this amazing swell. It was a big easterly swell generated by a big low off New Zealand. The winds were right. I had to go down to Hobart that day for a press conference, and my son was really peeved with me, but I got home at 6 o'clock and said: 'Grab your board. Let's go for a wave.' We went for a wave, and it was the best surf I've ever had in Tasmania with my son. I won't say where it was, but we were sitting out a couple hundred metres offshore. It was a good-sized swell, and we surfed until it was nearly dark. My son paddled up and said, 'Dad, it's getting a bit creepy out here.' I said, 'Yes, you're right; it is,' so we went in. Two days later, just a couple of beaches up, a young boy—the same age as my son—was surfing and had a big white shark, nearly five metres, breach right next to him. It literally showed the surfer his fangs. Of course, the father witnessed this. The young kid's been traumatised. He may not surf again for a while. But we always know they're there in the water.
This report talks about how we can better manage the risks of encounters, but it makes it clear the only way we can totally reduce the risk of shark encounters in this country for all beachgoers—and not just beachgoers, but rivers and canals and other places where we have shark encounters—is to kill every shark in the ocean. That would be an absolute catastrophe for our ecosystem. Sharks play a very important role in keeping our ecosystems healthy. So what do we do? This report has a series of recommendations. It's a couple of hundred pages long. It has dozens of recommendations on how we could better mitigate the risk, but we heard enough evidence that we can phase out shark nets and drum lines in this country and replace them with other technologies. I would urge all senators who have an interest in this—in fact, all stakeholders around the country—to have a look at this report. It makes it very clear that there is no evidence at all that these nets that we spend millions of dollars on every year, that kill untold marine life and do so much damage to our ocean, work at all. They've simply been in place since the mid-1900s, and no-one can be bothered looking at new-century solutions.
One of the best things about this Senate report is, in the back of the report, there's a four-page summary of shark myths in this country. As the committee went around the country, we found nearly all the evidence we heard from—I will say—those who wanted to see sharks killed or culled or to have lethal mitigation measures in place were myths. This committee debunked those myths. I understand where those myths come from. There hasn't been good information at all in the media, which is something else the committee encountered. Media coverage of shark encounters and shark bites in this country has largely been abysmal. In fact, it's been dangerous and counterproductive and has helped politicise the issues. It even shocked me the other day when Donald Trump made comments about sharks and how he wanted to see sharks killed. We've heard the former Prime Minister Mr Tony Abbott talk about killing white sharks. Sadly, our environment minister—our so-called environment minister—has continued to politicise this issue of killing sharks in this country. He's even suggested to the West Australian government that they apply for exemptions under the EPBC Act, under our federal environmental laws, to put lethal methods in place to kill white sharks or tiger sharks in Western Australia—methods we know don't work. It's an absolute disgrace.
And the great white's protected species status is up for review very shortly. It really troubles me that, from what I've heard from the Liberal National Party, this protected species status will be removed. A population study by the CSIRO is absolutely critical to any decisions we make about shark mitigation in the future. That hasn't been released. However, I note with disgust that, around Christmas time, Josh Frydenberg leaked to the media information in this report about the population of white sharks in Western Australia being bigger than that on the east coast of Australia, without the full report being released—just in time to scare people for Christmas to serve his own short-term, self-serving, dangerous and counterproductive political goals.
This debate shouldn't be about human life versus marine life or nature; it should be about how we can get a balance between both. And I will say here clearly that every attack—as someone who thinks about it whenever he's in the water—every bite, every encounter we have between a human being and a shark is natural. It's understandable but it is tragic. The toll on communities—and we heard good evidence about this—can be highly traumatic. In fact, some people in these communities probably need counselling more than anything else, and that's understandable with any loss of human life. But the probability is very low. If you go into the ocean, you must understand the risks, and this report goes a long way to actually show what those risks are and what you can do to mitigate your own personal risks such as wearing shark deterrent devices like I do wear sometimes on my surfboard, which we know significantly reduce the risks of an encounter with a dangerous shark. But you'll never totally reduce that risk unless you don't go in the ocean or you kill every shark in the ocean. For those of us who love the ocean, neither of those options are acceptable.
We actually need to take a mature approach to this. I'm confident that, in the next 20 years, we can develop technologies to remove shark nets and drum lines to better protect human beings and to look after our marine life. It's long overdue that we moved on from this debate about killing sharks and whether that's necessary. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Migration Committee
Report
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (18:28): In respect of the report of the Joint Migration Standing Committee entitled No-one teaches you to become an Australian, I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
The Australian Greens did not support the establishment of this inquiry, because we believed that it would not prove to be a genuine attempt to improve the lives and outcomes of migrants in Australia. Unfortunately, history showed that we were entirely right to oppose the establishment of this inquiry, because, the way this inquiry was run under the chair, it became nothing more than a shameless attack on migrant communities in Australia. It was overtly designed to play one part of the Australian community against another, and was a fig leaf so that Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, could have an excuse to deport migrant children from Australia. This inquiry was a stitch-up with a predetermined outcome so that the Liberals could continue their political victimisation of non-white people in this country. This agenda has been made clear through the report's reliance on proven racist Andrew Bolt as though he were some kind of an expert on anything, let alone migration. We also know that the Liberal members of this committee completely misrepresented crime statistics in their majority report by overstating the rate of offending by Sudanese Australians by 40 per cent.
What an absolute farce this report was. What an absolute farce this inquiry was. But what do facts actually matter when you're more interested in running a racist campaign! That's what this inquiry was all about—a racist campaign—and over the last few months this racist campaign, this campaign of hatred, has ramped up more and more. We've had the ludicrous spectacle of Minister Dutton suggesting, from the comfort of his weekly massage in the studios of 2GB Sydney, lovingly provided by Ray Hadley, that the good people of Melbourne were now too afraid to go out for dinner because of Sudanese gangs. Fortunately, the good people of Melbourne have the sense to ignore the paranoid rantings and ravings of the Minister for Home Affairs.
We now, of course, have the elevation of the new Liberal Party senator—or perhaps that should be the new Britain First senator—Senator Molan, which shows how far the Liberal Party has descended into the hands of white supremacists in this country. Let's look at the facts. Senator Molan shared a video of a confirmed white supremacist group, Britain First, that has incredibly strong links to violent white right-wing extremists in the UK. He then doubled down on his decision. He didn't apologise, but—you know what?—just over an hour ago he wiped his whole Facebook page without explanation. It's all gone ta-ta. 'Nothing to see here,' says Senator Molan. That's not good enough. You can't wash the blood off your hands by simply deleting your social media page. He needs to apologise for sharing that vile video created by Britain First.
Senator Hanson-Young: Just like Trump had to.
Senator McKIM: As my colleague Senator Hanson-Young rightly reminds the Senate, even President Donald Trump apologised for sharing this group's lies, slander and violence. But not Senator Molan. It's beneath him to apologise, even when President Trump offered an apology. Just like all the other xenophobes in his party room—Minister Dutton, Mr Christensen and the rest of them—Prime Minister Turnbull is only too happy to endorse—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, please resume your seat.
Senator Seselja: Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. We've listened to this rant go on for a long time, but the particular point of order is in relation to reflections on members of both this place and the other place. Using the term 'xenophobes' to refer to members of the Senate or members of the House of Representatives is disorderly. It should be withdrawn.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim?
Senator McKIM: Are you after a response from me on the point of order?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's borderline, and I would ask you to not repeat the offence. I would ask you to respectfully withdraw it.
Senator McKIM: Might I just make an observation on the point of order, Madam Deputy President?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Of course.
Senator McKIM: I obviously used the words that I did and I don't—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator McKim. I did ask you specifically not to repeat—
Senator McKIM: No, I won't use those words. I was just saying that I obviously used the words that I did. But parliamentary privilege does exist to enable the truth to be spoken in this place, and I would submit the defence of truth, which backs up what I said. But I'm happy to continue and not repeat those words, if that would assist the chamber.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The request was to withdraw the comment you made and the term you used.
Senator McKIM: 'Xenophobe'. Is that unparliamentary, Madam Deputy President?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I indicated that it was borderline. In the spirit of good cooperation, I ask that it be withdrawn. You specifically listed a number of senators and MPs.
Senator McKIM: All right, I withdraw the words I used. But I will make the point that the multiple xenophobes in the coalition party room are only to happy to endorse Senator Molan. According to Prime Minister Turnbull this afternoon, Senator Molan doesn't have a racist bone in his body. If he doesn't have a racist bone in his body, why is he sharing racist content on his Facebook page? Why does he post the threads on his Facebook page in a way that agrees with obviously racist white supremacist comments that were made in the thread?
If you share the videos of white supremacists and then refuse to apologise, then guess what? You're a white supremacist. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's going to be a duck, isn't it? If the Prime Minister wants to carry on with the nonsense that we've seen in this report—the misrepresentation of crime statistics of Sudanese-Australian people; the allegation that there is a gang called the Apex Gang in Melbourne, when Victoria Police have strongly rebutted that suggestion—and if he is happy to ingratiate himself with white supremacists, that makes him no better than Britain First and the people who made that video.
Question agreed to.
Economics References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:36): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
This document is the government response to the Economics References Committee report on Australia's insurance industry. I make the point that this was an inquiry which I was privileged to chair. The title of this report, Australia's general insurance industry: sapping consumers of the will to compare, sums up the situation quite well. The market does not make it easy for consumers to find the best deal when it comes to general insurance. Labor has a proud history of standing up for consumers, and the Senate report went some way to addressing the issues that face consumers in this industry. The committee held two public hearings and made 15 recommendations, and I'm pleased that the government has now provided a response.
I'm choosing to see this response as a glass-half-full moment. The government response doesn't go far enough in some areas, unfortunately, but I am pleased to see that once again the government has followed Labor's lead in protecting consumers, agreeing with eight out of the 15 recommendations and agreeing to have the Commonwealth Treasury do further work around a number of these.
Before I jump into the detail, I will just give the Senate a short summary of the key issues that we looked at in the course of this inquiry. As I have indicated, I am pleased the government is tasking Treasury with working on reforms around the disclosure of, for example, last year's premium price on renewal notices; component pricing; a review of the standard cover regime; standard definitions; improving key fact sheets; and removing the general insurance exemption from unfair contract terms. There are a lot of mechanics to work out, but the government's response is very good to see and a welcome start to improving outcomes for consumers in the insurance industry.
Secondly, I do hope the Commonwealth uses its influence to work with the states in reforming strata insurance, particularly in uncovering potential kickbacks to strata managers and insurance brokers. Thirdly, in response to recommendation 1 of our report, the government has finally released its well-overdue response to the Northern Australia Insurance Premium Taskforce report. Fourthly, I mentioned that the ACCC northern Australia insurance review is welcome. I am a fan of the ACCC, but I am worried that there is a risk of death by a thousand reviews on this particular issue. The final report is due by November 2020. I'm concerned that, in the meantime, premiums in North Queensland will continue to be a burden for many Queenslanders.
While the government has agreed to the majority of our recommendations, it's not all rosy. I am disappointed that the government is refusing to reconsider its response to the Productivity Commission review and the benefits that increasing investment in mitigation could bring. I'm also disappointed that the government is rejecting the recommendation to do a detailed evaluation of a comparison web site. There are issues with private comparison web sites and there would be merit to understanding whether a publicly run web site would be of benefit. That is a quick overview of some of the issues.
I return to the reasons why Labor secured this inquiry in the first instance. We know that consumers need insurance. It is one of those necessary evils, particularly in areas prone to natural disasters, like my home state of Queensland, which has significant rain events, floods, cyclones and bushfires. And we know that governments want consumers to have insurance. It is in the public interest. It's in our interest, therefore, to make it more appealing, and transparency and affordability are crucial. That's why Labor recommends the government's acceptance of the recommendations requiring more transparent disclosures from insurers on policy renewal documents and to force insurers to explain price rises to consumers when queried. Labor also welcomes the government's recognition that consumers want to know where their money is going, tasking Treasury to do further work around component pricing. As I said, this is a welcome start.
I raise again the issue of strata insurance. As our population continues to increase, particularly in urban hubs, more individuals and families will live in unit complexes and high-rises. It's vital that these consumers are not ripped off when it comes to insurance because of, at best, unclear or, at worst, unethical practices in body corporate insurance purchasing processes. While Labor acknowledges that governance of strata title issues rests with state and territory governments, we assert that the Commonwealth also holds applicable policy levers that we can utilise to assist the states and territories. I'm pleased that the government appears willing to do this.
With regard to the government's response to the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce report, I ask: why did it take a recommendation by a Senate inquiry for the government to do its job on this issue? The government says:
The Government has been carefully considering the findings of the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce (the Taskforce) and all options available in detail.
Perhaps that explains why the response is 18 months overdue, but it certainly doesn't explain why it offers no practical solutions for the people of North Queensland.
While we're on the subject of North Queensland, I reiterate my concerns about the lengthy time frame given for the ACCC report, and I'm concerned generally about this government's record of acting on report recommendations and the government's record of ignoring North Queensland, as evidenced by what's happening with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. We have $5 billion of commitment there, and yet it's to deliver a single project on a single job for Queensland. This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. This NAIF facility appears to be Minister Canavan's personal plaything, but even his mates on the board here probably aren't thanking him now after the quite embarrassing performance at last week's public hearing in Cairns, where NAIF was unable to explain whether the Aurizon project was active or inactive.
Another disappointment in the government's response is its failure to reconsider the response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into natural disaster funding arrangements. The inquiry recommended that more money be invested in mitigation measures, leading to a lesser spend on disaster recovery. The government has rejected this despite acknowledging in its response to recommendation 1 that mitigation activities do reduce the risk of damage from cyclones and are the only way to reduce premiums on a sustainable basis. I've already expressed regret that the government refuses to explore the idea of a public comparison website. I won't elaborate on that point except to say that any consumers who've used a private comparison tool know that they are not without their problems. But I expect the Prime Minister and the Treasurer don't have to worry about using comparison websites, just like they don't have to worry about premium increases on their private health insurance. We all know that they're well out of touch with the cost-of-living pressures facing everyday Australians. Labor is standing up for these everyday Australians. If a public comparison website can save a struggling family a few dollars a week whilst ensuring they have appropriate insurance cover when disaster strikes then we think it's an idea at least worth further investigation.
Finally, while Labor welcomes the government's commitment to release proposals in early 2018 to remove the exemption for general insurers to unfair contract terms legislation, I am somewhat cynical about the timeliness of the government. They have proved time and again that they can't be trusted to follow through on their promises. I hope on this occasion I'm proved wrong and that they will act on this report in a timely manner. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Education and Employment References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (18:44): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Once again, we see in this government's response a complete lack of empathy, a complete lack of understanding, a complete disregard for the fact that many Australian workers depend on penalty rates to put food on the table and shoes on their kids' feet. This is a response that demonstrates the problems with this government. It demonstrates that this government just does not care. Those opposite hide behind the proposition that the Fair Work Commission, the independent umpire, made this decision and the government was some kind of bystander in this approach. But what we saw was a campaign by senior government ministers and senior government parliamentary secretaries. We heard backbench members constantly backing up the business claim that penalty rates should go. Well, Labor will not accept that, and workers and families will have a clear choice at the next election—that is, between a government that in this report demonstrates its lack of concern, lack of care, for ordinary Australian workers and Labor, who will put working people at the forefront of our policy agenda for the next election.
We had months of attacks on penalty rates by the right wing of the coalition, we had months of campaigning out in the community by the coalition against penalty rates, and we had the Fair Work Commission, in my view, make a serious mistake with this decision. The government actually argued that the Fair Work Commission got it right; it had all these submissions. But the problem was that the Fair Work Commission got it wrong. This was one of the worst decisions ever by the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission itself, you find when you read the decision, accept that this decision will cause hardship to workers who lose their penalty rates. In a period when incomes are falling in this country, when we've seen the coalition preside over stagnating wages, adding another component to that—that is, taking away penalty rates that workers rely on to get a decent wage in this country—is outrageous.
We offered the coalition, on many occasions, the opportunity to join with Labor and other parties in this place to reject the decision of the Fair Work Commission. They refused to take that up. And we see the proposition, the arguments they put up, here in their pathetic attempt to justify cuts to penalty rates. We see again where the government really stand. They would hand $65 billion of public money to businesses in this country, including the banks and massive multinational corporations, and take the penalty rates away from ordinary Australian workers. I find it unbelievable. This coalition will pay a price at the next election for this callous disregard for the working poor in this country.
I am one of the few in this place who have actually depended on penalty rates to feed a family—not to get me through university, because I never went to university. I never had an opportunity to care about penalty rates on the basis that it might help me pay for my tertiary education. My penalty rates helped put food on the table. My penalty rates helped me, now and again, once in a blue moon, to maybe buy a pizza or McDonald's for the kids. My penalty rates helped pay my mortgage, helped pay my rent and helped put food on the table. Without my penalty rates, I would never have been in a position to take my kids for a holiday once in a blue moon.
That's the life of many, many Australian workers. That's the life of many Australian families. They depend on penalty rates to actually get a living—and not a living in some mansion in the eastern suburbs on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour, like the Prime Minister, who's so remote and so removed from the daily struggles of ordinary Australian workers—not like many on the other side, who have never had to work for a penalty rate to feed their family. They've never had to do that, and yet they come here on the massive salaries that are enjoyed by politicians and take a position to support a cut to penalty rates for the working poor in this country. I just find it absolutely obnoxious, especially when the Fair Work Commission has said itself that this will create hardship for ordinary Australians.
Not only do this mob across the chamber support and set up campaigns to remove penalty rates for Australian workers but they continually bring bills and legislate in this place to make it harder for workers to bargain. They make it harder for workers to come together against the power and influence of the employer so that they can act collectively and actually negotiate decent wages and conditions. You've only got to see what the result of that has been: diminishing enterprise bargains in this country, diminishing agreements, diminishing outcomes for workers and stagnating wages. We see workers in this country having to battle to actually put food on the table, to pay their electricity bills, to meet their commitments, to pay the rent or pay a mortgage.
This mob across the chamber don't care. They would rather hand $65 billion to business on the basis of some crazy, outdated, unproved, unsustainable argument that the trickle-down effect will create more jobs and benefits for working people. What a load of codswallop! What a load of nonsense! It didn't work under Ronald Reagan in the US, it didn't work under Thatcher in the UK and it won't work under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Australia.
People are just sick and tired of people that are so remote, so privileged, so elite in their lifestyles, telling ordinary Australians that they cannot bargain effectively, that they've got to give up their penalty rates and that they've got to accept stagnating wages. While profits are going through the roof for corporations and businesses in this country, wages are declining. That's what this government has delivered in this country. They've delivered this on the basis of delivering for their mates who put money in their electoral coffers every time an election is called. Business is handing money over to the coalition, and the coalition is delivering declining living standards in this country. This is what we will be dealing with at the next election. I look forward to the next election, because fairness, equity and decency will trump their crazy economics and make sure we provide decent rights, decent conditions and not trickle-down economics in this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Environment and Communications References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (18:56): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Let me start off this evening by saying: about goddamn time! It has taken no less than 642 days—for the benefit of those listening and watching at home, that's the same duration necessary for a trip to and back from the planet of Mars—for the government to table their response to the inquiry into the future of Australia's video game development industry. It has also required a lot of what I will charitably call encouragement by both myself and my predecessor Senator Ludlam. Also I must acknowledge our colleagues in the ALP. It has been quite an extraction process, and the result at the end of the day is truly uninspiring, disappointing and yet not all that surprising from a government who could be well summarised by all of those words.
Six hundred and forty-two days: that is how long has passed since the Senate inquiry into this sector of our economy returned a universally supported report—including from LNP senators—which recommended the reinstatement of support to the video game industry. However, all this government could bring itself to do was note these recommendations. So, in turn, I would like to note the government's lack of understanding of the video game industry. I would like also to note the government's lack of concern for the future of the video game industry in Australia. I would like to note the outrage of this community at the government's disrespect, contempt and outright ignorance of their creative, cultural and economic contribution to the Australian nation.
While I'm at it, I would also like to note that this government seems to be willing to give nearly $4 billion to prop Australia up to the position of one of the world's chief warmongers and merchants of death but can find only $17,000 to support the Games Developers' Association of Australia to attend the 2018 Game Developers Conference in San Francisco. If that doesn't tell you something about the priorities of this government and its painful lack of imagination, then I don't know what does.
This period of time is a long one in game development. It is a long time for the industry to wait for a response that existed six months earlier than when it arrived. It is a long time to wait to hear about whether this government has any care, investment or, indeed, intention to support the industry. Most of all, it is a particularly long time to wait to hear the bitterly disappointing news that the government has no intention to attempt to undo some of the damage that it has already inflicted on the industry.
Of course, it is not as long as the 3.75 years since the coalition announced that it would cancel the Australian Interactive Games Fund halfway through its three-year funding cycle, ignorantly blowing away support for the industry and extracting savings for its infamous 2014 budget, without consultation or consideration of future implications. The act of cancelling this fund, along with the subsequent act of refusing to respond to the unanimous inquiry, before ultimately denying any support to this industry, are further attacks by this government on the future of a potentially booming and blooming industry—not just digital but also creative.
Of course, I can see why the government might be terrified of this report and its recommendations. It suggests that they might need to roll out, fundamentally, a 21st-century broadband infrastructure network, invest in the digital economy and work towards supporting diverse and fair workplaces. In short, it describes a world in which the listless, unimaginative and, frankly, lost husk that is the current Australian Liberal Party is rather surplus to requirements and direly in need of upgrade.
Finally, I would like to do what the government could not bring itself to do, and that is to note the positive contributions that the video game industry make and how important they are to Australia. They are, without doubt or dispute, extraordinarily culturally significant. They shape young minds and tell stories, and we must have Australian voices and stories conveyed through this medium into the future. They are artistically significant. They form part of our overall artistic landscape, bridging and feeding into other artistic communities and mediums. And they are economically significant—they form part of our digital economy and our future. They are, as you might say, innovative. I would have thought the Prime Minister would want to get on board with something like that, particularly considering that the industry is worth over $100 billion a year globally and that we could have a slice of it. The Australian Greens, once again, call on the government to make some attempt to haul itself into the 21st century and support this amazing industry which bridges art, culture and technology and presents so many opportunities for Australia and the Australian community.
Question agreed to.
National Broadband Network - Joint Standing
Government Response to Report
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:04): In respect of the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network's first report of the 45th Parliament, The rollout of the National Broadband Network, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Over the break, the government tabled their response to the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN. In their response, the government did not support any of the recommendations of the majority committee and supported only 14 in principle, while outright rejecting the other nine. Indeed, they had the gall to say that they were disappointed that the committee still didn't understand what they regarded to be the fundamentals of the NBN. I'm not sure, but surely the government must be able to see the irony at the heart of this statement—a statement that after 191 submissions, the holding of 15 public hearings and the receiving of 179 witness testimonies, the committee still didn't 'get' the NBN. Well, the government is, surprisingly on this one, half right: there is a failure to understand. But it is the government's failure to understand what the people of Australia need and want from the National Broadband Network. There is certainly plenty of disappointment in that regard; disappointment that the government took the NBN, gutted it and replaced it with a mixed technology mongrel that is failing Australia on all fronts.
For the benefit of the chamber and those listening at home, I want to briefly review some of the recommendations that the government found so offensive and unnecessary in the NBN committee report, so much so that it could not support them. It didn't support the idea of planning for the future beyond the shoddy and broken network that it is currently deploying. It refused to plan for and cost the only futureproof solution to the NBN, that being fibre to the premises. The government also did not support the best practice installation of the NBN so that once a premise is connected, it is ready for service and unlikely to require repeat visits. The government also could not bring itself to support NBN Co identifying and disclosing the premises that were previously slated for fibre and which have been downgraded to the already overloaded satellite system, or bring itself to explain the decision why. But, you know, why have transparency? It's kind of overrated, particularly in the telecommunications space.
The government also does not support setting up a rural and regional reference group to consult on the Sky Muster services and provide oversight of the extreme issues and delays that rural and regional Australians have suffered in trying to connect to and use the NBN. It does surprise me that the passionate and often vocal members of the National Party in this chamber haven't had something to say about that.
Finally, the government does not support the idea that the NBN should identify its complaints processes for customers and that this information should be provided in a way that meets Australian government accessibility standards. So not only does the government seem not to care about whether customers have complaints with the NBN, but it also does not care about whether those systems can be accessed accessibly for people with a disability.
The committee understands the pitiful excuse of an NBN that the government has dumped on the Australian people. We understand it in great detail. That has been our job. We understand because we actually read the 191 submissions and listened to the 179 testimonies that were given, again, over 15 hearings. The government has now made it overwhelmingly clear that it does not care that its vision for the NBN is broken, and it has no intention of rolling out a NBN that is fast, affordable, reliable or futureproof. In short, the government simply does not care about delivering the service that Australians need.
If I could make one recommendation in the hope that it might resonate with the government, it would be to simply end this rolling nightmare. Call an election, lose the damned thing and step away from the NBN before you hurt yourselves. I thank the chamber for its time.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
Consideration of motions to take note of the following committee reports adjourned without debate:
Community Affairs References Committee—Value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs—Interim reports [2] and final report.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program (CDP)—Report.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Delivery of National Outcome 4 of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children—Report.
Community Affairs References Committee—Final report—Prevalence of different types of speech, language and communication disorders and speech pathology services in Australia—Government response.
BILLS
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017
Explanatory Memorandum
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:09): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ) (19:10): The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:10): by leave—I move:
That Senator McKenzie be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of members to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Economics Legislation Committee
Report
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (19:11): On behalf of the Economics Legislation Committee I present the report of the committee on the provisions of Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017 together with Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:11): I rise to continue my remarks which I commenced just before question time today with regard to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018. In my opening remarks today I indicated that there were serious concerns about what the government were attempting with this bill. The sector seems to be quite happy to have a modesty skirt, basically, to protect them from proper scrutiny. I want to repeat a couple of the remarks from Choice, who didn't describe it as a 'bear that had any teeth'—in fact, they said it was more of a 'teddy bear' as a piece of legislation. I think that's absolutely the case.
If we go immediately to some of the details of what this bill does in terms of setting out the accountability obligations of authorised deposits-taking institutions—which for most people generally means banks—we see that this is what they're saying banks should do: 'A bank must take reasonable steps to conduct its business with honesty and integrity and with due skill, care and diligence.' I'm waiting for that to settle, because I can't understand why we're stating that in a bill here. That should well and truly already be the case. If that's one of the goals of this piece of legislation, it just shows you how desperately bad things are in the sector. ADIs must take reasonable steps to deal with APRA in an open, constructive and cooperative way. For those who might be listening to this debate and who don't know what APRA is, they're the government authority that makes sure that banks and other major institutions that have fiduciary responsibilities are doing the right thing. This is supposed to make the banks open, constructive and cooperative with APRA. This accountability obligation that's supposed to come in now is a far cry from what people have expected their banks should be doing all the time. What we see just in those two elements of this bill is an important part of why it should exist. It just goes to show how desperately bad the cultural practices of our banks are.
I want to indicate clearly that Labor is not going to stand in the way of this legislation, but, my goodness, it's a low, low bar that has been set by this piece of legislation: 'Naughty banks! You should play nice with APRA. You should be open and transparent.' It's just really not good enough. We know that the Labor Party, for a very long time, has been very concerned about systemic, structural and cultural issues that are facing the banking and financial services sectors. During the course of the Senate inquiry that was held into this bill, evidence was not provided to the contrary. The evidence that was received indicated that, if this BEAR legislation—the legislation that is before the parliament today for debate and that perhaps will be voted on tomorrow—had been in place, it probably wouldn't have had the impact required to change the banking practices and outcomes.
We know that more needs to be done, because there have been a multitude of banking scandals. We seem to be hearing about them on an almost weekly basis. Labor has been calling for this government to take seriously the entrenched issues in this sector by having a proper royal commission, in which the terms of reference are very, very carefully considered, where everybody who could be significantly affected—everybody who is a key stakeholder in this—has a say. But, in the hasty way that this government finally caved and delivered a form of a banking royal commission, we saw consultation with a very limited group of people. The banks in particular featured prominently in the consultations that were undertaken. So, after 600 days of delay, instead of a genuine royal commission that could do a proper job, we have this weak piece of legislation. Instead of having a proper royal commission, we've got the banking royal commission that the banks would like to have. We've got the banking royal commission that the banks are willing to have. Banks—we hear them all the time—ANZ, NAB, Commonwealth, Westpac—they've been mentioned by all of my colleagues who've participated in this debate, including Senator Williams and yourself, Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson.
We have a big problem. The Australian people know it. And we need to have a higher bar set by this government in terms of dealing with that problem. Despite the fact that we're having the banking royal commission that the banks were willing to have, the Prime Minister's reaction to his own announcement of the royal commission was to label it as a 'regrettable' thing. He said it was a regrettable thing to actually have to go and inquire into the banks, which have been so prominently featured in our media impacting terribly on people's lives.
Senator Williams and I have been on the joint parliamentary committee into financial services and superannuation for several years, and we've seen an awful lot come before us. We have heard some incredibly sad stories. And I know that the senator's spoken to many people offline. I think of one story at the Storm Financial hearing that we had in Melbourne. I recall a gentleman sitting at the end of a row of people who came to give testimony about the impact of terrible practices within banking and financial services provision. He was speaking about what it was like for him to feel like he had lost everything—the shame, the burden of failure. He talked about how he drove out and sat under the flight path of planes at Melbourne Airport and considered taking his own life. This is the reality of a failure of culture in our banks; exploitation of people has become a model of operation for profit-making by those with power and agency.
It's not good enough that this piece of legislation is mucking around at the edges. What's even worse is that we're subjected to a royal commission that is inadequate in its terms of reference. What sort of terms of reference can you possibly get when your process of consultation has ignored the victims of the banking sector—like the man I just spoke about who gave evidence in Storm Financial, like the people who have stood up for all the managed investment schemes where they were exploited, and people like Jeff Morris, who stood up about CommInsure? Those whistleblowers, those people who have been working in the banks trying to get their message through—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ) (19:20): It being 7.20, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:20): Although there remain cynics out there, the reality is everyone loves a wedding—especially a royal wedding. A wedding is one of the most significant milestones in anyone's life, and an anniversary allows a couple to step back from the daily grind and relive a moment that changed their lives forever. The anniversary of a royal wedding allows us all to reflect on the significance of this moment and how our lives have been changed.
When Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh married in Westminster Abbey in 1947, during the period of postwar austerity, Winston Churchill called the wedding 'a flash of colour on the long road we have to travel.' On 20 November last year, the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are the first British monarch and consort to reach this remarkable historical milestone. The Queen acknowledged this in her Christmas broadcast as she reflected on significant events visited upon Britain over the last 12 months, including the Grenfell Tower fire and Manchester attack. She said:
Reflecting on these events makes me grateful for the blessings of home and family and, in particular, for 70 years of marriage. I don't know that anyone had invented the term 'platinum' for a 70th wedding anniversary. When I was born, you weren't expected to be around that long.
Even Prince Philip has decided it's time to slow down a little, having, as he economically put it, done his bit. But I know his support and unique sense of humour will remain as strong as ever as we enjoy spending time this Christmas with our family, and look forward to welcoming new members into it next year.
So the Queen reflected in her most recent Christmas broadcast.
Seventy years since they wed, the Commonwealth continues to survive, and the Queen remains head of state of 16 of its 53 countries. The monarchy remains the only national institution that still commands widespread and instinctive respect. For over 70 years, the Queen has kept the pledge she so memorably made on her 21st birthday in Cape Town to devote her whole life to the service of her subjects. She has been immeasurably fortunate that, for seven decades, the Duke of Edinburgh has been so steadfast in his support and undoubted affection for her. This support has been crucial in positioning the monarchy as a beacon of stability in what is a world of increasing complexity and turmoil. I join with my fellow Australians and the Commonwealth in paying tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the celebration of their 70th wedding anniversary in the November just passed. I congratulate Her Majesty and His Royal Highness on this remarkable achievement, which continues to be the longest royal marriage known in history.
Later this year, the Queen celebrates another significant milestone: the 65th anniversary of her coronation. At the age of 25, following the death of her father, King George VI, the Queen ascended to the throne. It was on this very day, in fact, 66 years ago. More than a year later, on 2 June 1953, the coronation ceremony took place. The Queen may not be considered a ground breaker by some, but her innovation should be acknowledged at this historical juncture. Her coronation was the first to be televised, but it was only so because Her Majesty did not take the advice of her then-Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and other members of the British cabinet, who were against the idea. In the United Kingdom alone, the coronation was watched by 27 million people and of course millions more around the world. The ceremony lasted almost three hours and was comprised of six parts: the recognition, the oath, the anointing, the investiture, the enthronement and the homage.
It is important, I believe, to better understand the ritual, history and religious and political significance of the act of the coronation, an event that has taken place at Westminster Abbey for over 900 years. The monarchy represents evolution and continuity. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the longest-serving sovereign in the history of the British crown. That alone is worthy of great celebration. Long may she reign.
Daly River Evacuation
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (19:24): I rise tonight in adjournment to make a contribution on behalf of—and to report to the Senate about—the Daly River community and the residents of Daly River. It's a community over 230 kilometres south of Darwin, and many of you may have heard, over the last couple of weeks, of heavy rain there. It is the wet season in the Top End, and so, naturally, there is excess water flowing, particularly when we have heavy lows or cyclones. In this instance, it was incredibly heavy rains.
The Daly River community were evacuated to Darwin last week following those torrential rains. I want to give my praise to the Northern Territory Emergency Service, who ensured that the town's 380 residents were evacuated safely to the Foskey Pavilion in Darwin. Many of these residents were evacuated by helicopter. There is a sealed road to Daly River from Darwin, down the Stuart Highway, but, obviously, in this instance, all roads were cut.
I also want to thank the people of Darwin. They have provided additional food, shelter and services to all of those residents from Daly River. It was certainly heartening to read about. On my own visit to the Foskey Pavilion, just before I came here for parliamentary sittings, I spent time with residents at the Foskey Pavilion to see how they were going. It certainly wasn't raining. It was very hot and humid; that's the wet season for you. But they're making the most of a transitional stage. They're not home; they're on Larrakia country and they're being well looked after.
There are quite a number of children, from preschool age right up to secondary school, and those children have been able to attend school in Nightcliff. It was certainly important to listen to the parents. They are pleased that, even in this evacuation crisis, their children are attending school. I'd like to extend a very big thank you to the teachers at Nightcliff Middle School and St John's College, who've taken it upon themselves to make room for additional students to go to their school. A very, very big thankyou to those teachers and the staff there in both those schools.
I understand teaching staff have also taken the opportunity to introduce the students to a range of organisations and programs, including the Be Crocwise campaign. Even the Darwin City Library is getting a visit, as well as Defence, and, of course, AFL Northern Territory. I'm sure it's an experience many of these young children from Daly River won't be forgetting any time too soon. And I'm sure they'll be keen to get back home.
Lastly, I would like to thank both the Northern Territory government and the federal government, who, through the jointly funded NDRRA, are also making financial assistance available for clean-up operations and to repair any damaged essential public assets. And there are certainly the charities—the Red Cross in particular. It was wonderful to be able to spend time with them and listen to some of the issues that they might need help with in terms of logistics. On the whole, it was terrific to be able to be there with the families from Daly River at the Foskey Pavilion, and I certainly look forward to seeing them again, and, hopefully, seeing them back at the Daly River community.
Telecommunications
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:28): Tonight I would like to talk about this coalition government's track record in relation to IT and its general failure in the space of telecommunications, data protection and civil rights.
This government—first under Mr Abbott and now under Prime Minister Turnbull—have proven time and time again that they are not fit to lead Australia into the digital future. Indeed, after the very distressing developments of today in relation to Senator Molan's sympathies towards the Britain First movement and the apparent imbibing into the Australian parliament of an individual sympathetic to the ultranationalistic, I am quite unconvinced that this government is capable of even leading its own backside out of a straight maze. But, there you go. The lengths they will go to drive Australians backwards, far away from technological capability, are quite astonishing and matched only by their seeming limitlessness.
I would like now to list just a few key failures of the government in this space, some of the highlights, let's say—the debacles, the misdemeanours and the general mismanagement of Australia's key technological systems and infrastructure. These failures are the legacy of a failed communications minister who lurched on to become a disappointment of a Prime Minister. First up, there is the ghoul in the cupboard, the National Broadband Network. I'm not sure I need to say anymore, particularly since I've spoken on this issue tonight already. The name alone strikes fear, dismay and no small measure of depression into the hearts of all Australians.
Then there are the breaches, the leaks and the hacks. It seems that this government is a veritable colander when it comes to keeping safe the private information of Australians. Whether it be Medicare, or private contractors or the protection of the anonymity of journalists—or, whoops, here we go, back to Medicare breaches again—the government has shown time and time again that it cannot be trusted to keep safe the data of the Australian people. And then of course we wander on to data retention—that grand scheme and attempt to violate the human right to privacy and collect even more personal information to be breached in the future—because, you know, if a bucket is leaking, why not fill it up? Then, of course, we move on to the government's quite astonishingly hypocritical attempts to break into the encrypted data space, when every single member of parliament in this room and also absent has got, I would bet my entire parliamentary salary for the rest of my time in this place, an encrypted application upon their phone for the use of messaging their colleagues. How do we think that these spills and other political manoeuvrings take place? They certainly don't take place in non-encrypted spaces.
Finally, to complete this rather Halloweenesque meander, I'd like to bring the Senate's attention to a program under development for the purposes of facial recognition which has been named 'The Capability' by this government. I'm not sure whether there was somebody in a department somewhere who is a fan of The Twilight Zone or simply enjoys scaring the living hell out of anyone in the digital rights space, but it sure sends a cold shiver down my spine when I think about what it might be like to try to protect your biometric data under this government. Good luck, I would say to anybody, in getting issued with a new face once this system has inevitably been hacked. Much like the National Broadband Network, this government is generally disconnected, outdated, unreliable, slow and lacking in fibre both morally and otherwise. (Time expired)
Lindsay, Mr Greg
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (19:33): I rise tonight to pay tribute to Greg Lindsay, who earlier this year stepped down as executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies, the think-tank he founded in 1976. Few Australians will be able to say that they have done as much as Greg Lindsay to advance the classical liberal cause. The CIS was founded in the most humble way by a maths teacher in his shed in Pennant Hills. In the 40 years since, it has grown to be the influential and respected institution that it is today, employing dozens of talented researchers and in a much more impressive permanent home on Macquarie Street in Sydney. Founding and sustaining a think-tank at any time is a profoundly entrepreneurial feat; founding a think-tank dedicated to free market values in the 1970s is another thing entirely. There was very little in the political climate at the time which suggested that these ideas would be well received, but they were sorely needed.
Greg was dismayed by what he described as the incompetent actions of the Whitlam government and he was unimpressed by the stagnation under Fraser. He was particularly frustrated by a common attitude that viewed government as a solution for all of society's problems. Drawing on the work of classical liberal and libertarian thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat and John Locke, Greg knew that Australia could be a much more prosperous and free place if it embraced these ideas The CIS makes the case for these ideas with high-quality research and by publishing books; hosting conferences and public events; through media commentary; and by bringing world-renowned writers and intellectuals to our shores, including Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Mario Vargas Llosa, Francis Fukuyama, PJ O'Rourke, Niall Ferguson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, just to name a few.
As history has shown, Greg and the CIS were at the forefront of what turned out to be a global movement to revive and reassert the values of individual liberty and responsibility, free enterprise, the rule of law and limited democratic government. On a personal level, I'm very grateful to Greg and the CIS for the role they played in my own intellectual and career development. I have benefitted immensely from participating as a young person in their Liberty and Society conferences. They helped me better understand the philosophical roots of my instincts about public policy and to refine my ideas about how to positively shape the future of Australia.
The first article I ever had published was in their journal, POLICY Magazine, which led to many other opportunities. More recently, I have enjoyed participating in their incredibly stimulating Consilium conference. Like many parliamentarians, I rely on their research to inform me about contemporary policy issues. To spend time with Greg and the impressive team of passionate researchers he has assembled is to be enriched and challenged intellectually.
In preparing for this speech, I read an interview of Greg by Andrew Norton on the 20th anniversary of the CIS's founding in 1996. What struck me about that interview is that the issues that were of concern to the CIS in 1976, 1996 and today are much the same. This is not to suggest that the CIS have been unsuccessful in prosecuting their case—far from it. In areas like welfare policy and education, in particular, they have been phenomenally influential, as well as playing a leading part in the advocacy for the successful opening up of the Australian economy in the 1980s and nineties. But what it does demonstrate is that the battles fought by Greg and the CIS are never won: they have to be fought and won again and again. That is why Greg Lindsay leaves such a powerful legacy for Australia and the liberal cause.
He leaves an organisation which has established authority, credibility and independence, and, most importantly, an enduring commitment to the principles of a free society. It will go on to fight these battles long after Greg himself enjoys a well-earned retirement at Kingfisher. I can't think of a more meaningful legacy to leave than that for a man so committed to ideas.
While Greg will be stepping down as executive director, he will remain on the board and will no doubt continue to have an influence on the CIS and Australian public debate for many years to come. To the great relief, no doubt, of all the CIS staff and supporters, his wife, Jenny, is continuing her role with the CIS. I know how important Jenny has been to Greg's life work and in raising their three impressive children. In many ways, the CIS has been a family enterprise for the Lindsays.
Greg leaves the CIS in the capable hands of Tom Switzer. The board had a hard task, but they have made a wonderful choice. Tom is one of Australia's finest public intellectuals and no stranger to the world of think tanks, having started his own career at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. I wish him and the CIS team well for another 40 years in the never-ending battle for liberal ideas. Thank you.
Indigenous Affairs
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:38): I rise tonight to put on the record my serious concerns about the Turnbull government's attitude towards the funding of housing in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
This is a matter that I have only recently become aware of, and I know there are many other senators in this place who have closer association with these types of issues. But this matter was brought to my attention during the course of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's review into the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017. We had a public hearing recently in relation to that, and I'm indebted to the Local Government Association of Queensland for highlighting the plight of remote Indigenous communities and the prospect that we have now of the funding for housing in those communities being discontinued, with the responsibility for funding for these communities going back to the states.
So the Local Government Association wrote to me to seek our committee's urgent intervention in relation to this issue, and I must say I was somewhat shocked to learn that the government, since December of last year, has not provided any indication that there will be a continuation of funding. So the other levels of government in Queensland, local government and the state government, now appear to be of the view that there will not be any further funding until the federal government advises otherwise
When it comes to disadvantaged communities like this, surely, if there's one thing that we've learnt from the Closing the Gap exercise, it's that all levels of government should be working together to address these types of issues. I can't think of an issue that's any more fundamental than the question of housing. So many things flow from that. It goes to the dignity of individuals. It underpins their capacity to engage in a range of other areas that we would support them in. If you don't have proper housing, you are really struggling to participate adequately in society.
The LGAQ advised me that they consider that the government is basically on the doorstep of abrogating its Closing the Gap responsibilities. They say that the situation in remote communities in Queensland is a housing crisis. They say that in some instances the overcrowding in these communities is so great that you have up to 30 people living in a two-bedroom house in some of these areas. I've also been contacted by the Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works, expressing the concern of the state government in Queensland in respect of this issue.
We've seen that the funding that has flowed through to remote housing has been in place since the Commonwealth gained responsibility for Indigenous affairs in the 1967 referendum. It specifically sought to improve housing standards and overcrowding in remote communities. So this is a pretty historic abrogation of responsibility by the Commonwealth. It's not an issue that I have been involved in in the past, but I must say, as I said earlier, that I am somewhat shocked that people in vulnerable situations in remote communities are being placed in this situation.
There is a lack of information coming forward, so I call upon Senator Scullion to clarify the situation, and I hope there will be a continuation of funding for these communities. It's not just the funding for the housing which is so important. The funding for this housing goes towards job opportunities and apprenticeships in these areas which have been extremely valuable in providing jobs for these areas. The independent advice that we have calls for an increase of 1,100 new houses over 10 years. I understand that the Commonwealth government endorses that target of 1,100 new houses. Whilst Queensland is closing the gap, it appears that the Commonwealth is on the doorstep of abrogating its responsibilities in this area.
Victoria: Criminal Justice System
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (19:43): I want to tell you a horror story tonight—a number of horror stories, actually—involving one family in Victoria where, again, our so-called justice system went terribly wrong. Once again, the victim gets less rights and less protection than a criminal gets.
It was bad enough that a little girl was sexually abused by her father for years. That brave girl and her mother went to the police and went through the court system, and the father, whose name is Alan Robson, was jailed for seven years. They thought he was safely behind bars. The mother and her daughter went to a family funeral, and they were stunned. They were shocked to see her father, her abuser, at that funeral. Nobody had warned them. True, Robson was in handcuffs and he was under supervision with an escort, but nobody had informed that girl or her mother that he had been let out on day release to attend the funeral. The victim, understandably, was so distraught she left that family funeral in tears Why wasn't she told? She was on the Victims Support Agency register, so the authorities knew exactly where to contact her.
The family then seemed to get the run-around when they sought some answers. They shared genuine fears that there would be more family events, more family funerals, while the paedophile father was in jail and asked if they would be informed if he applied for day release again. Apparently, Robson was given day release under the Custodial Community Permit Program, CCPP, and not under special funeral leave. It was the same result, but under that program a victim on the Victims Register does not have to be warned, which didn't make much sense to me, didn't make much sense to the victim and didn't make much sense to her mother. The victim's mother came to us, and so we followed it up with Corrections Victoria and we were told, 'The situation you describe is highly concerning and should not have occurred.' And we were told that an investigation would be conducted once we provided the prisoner's name and prison details.
Having had a win for victims in Victoria, the Department of Justice and Regulation and Corrections Victoria advised us that a promised review had 'identified shortcomings in upholding the best interests of registered victims'. No kidding. So, from now on, in Victorian jails prison staff must contact the Victims Support Agency before considering the granting of leave for any prisoner under the CCPP as well as under the rehabilitation and reintegration permits program and the family ties permits program. It could get even a little bit better for some victims because, in his letter to us, Acting Commissioner Rod Wise also said, 'In light of your correspondence, the possibility of extending this change to other permits will be raised with the assistant commissioner for further consideration over time.'
So it is a victory. I know it's a small victory, but it is a victory thanks to the tenacity of a mother and her daughter who brought it to our attention at a time when the rights of prisoners, the rights of convicted criminals, seem to take precedence again and again over the rights of the people whose lives they have destroyed. Hopefully, that nightmarish experience at that family funeral won't be repeated.
Bjelke-Petersen, Lady Florence 'Flo' Isabel
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (19:47): I would like to make a few brief comments this evening about the passing of Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen. I apologise to the Senate that I was unable to speak on the condolence motion yesterday, but I would like to take this opportunity to put some remarks on the record. As a more recent addition to politics, I did not know Flo all that well but I did campaign with her in my first election campaign in 2013. Lady Flo was at the ripe and vibrant age of 93 and was still a rock star in the brief campaigning events that I did with her. We had a morning tea, which was very well attended, with of course her famous pumpkin scones, and then went down to the Gympie shops, where she was absolutely mobbed. Even that long since she had retired, more than 20 years after she left the Senate, she was still a star in her local community.
I got thinking at her funeral service that I attended a month or so ago about what made Flo like that and what inspired that reaction among people in the brief time I spent with her. During the funeral it became very obvious that, at the heart of Lady Flo's attitude—perhaps more than her love of her husband, her commitment to the state of Queensland and her obvious caring and nurturing of her four children—and at the centre of her life was her Christian faith. Time and time again speakers spoke about the many used Bibles that Flo had destroyed by earmarking and underlining in her constant reading of them, and her particularly kind nature and respect for each and every individual flowed from that strong Christian faith that she lived her whole life. Given the reaction of many at that service and others, as I say, who I have spoken to, she did live up to the challenge of Jesus Christ and did treat everybody in her life with respect, and many returned that to her as well. She also, I think, from that strong faith had a great commitment to serving others in every capacity she could in life, be that as a mother, a homemaker, a senator or a public servant, which she was when she met Joh before their marriage. She seemed to throw herself into everything in life and do it for more than just the pay or the return. Indeed, in her final speech in this place, she mentioned that she'd been a paid servant for the people of Queensland for the past 12 years and that she would now return to doing it for free. And I think she definitely did live up to that throughout the next quarter of a century.
She also had a great commitment to her family and the importance of family in public life. I went back and read her first speech, where she raised an issue, as I did in my first speech, which was the tax treatment of single-income families. She campaigned long and hard for a better tax system for those people. It is regrettable that the situation for single-income families has deteriorated over the years, not gotten better, particularly with the increase in the tax-free thresholds, which means a single-income family on $75,000 a year pays the same tax as a double-income family that earns $175,000 a year. It is not an outcome that I think is, and certainly Flo thought was, particularly fair. In that first speech, Flo was also quite prescient. She heavily supported the development of Queensland as a state increasingly reliant on the resources sector for its economy. She and her husband particularly championed the development of the Bowen Basin, which delivered Queensland a huge economic boon—indeed, a boon for the whole nation that we are still benefiting from today.
She was part of an era of Queensland politics which did deliver significant economic growth and took Queensland from being a state that was thought of as being behind the major states to one of the premier states in this country—indeed, an economic driver for this country. Her passing ends a real era for our state, the Bjelke-Petersen era. Ron Boswell made the point in his contribution after her valedictory speech in this place that, with Flo leaving the Senate in 1992, it ended a period of 47 years in Queensland politics where there was a Bjelke-Petersen in either the state or the federal parliament. It was an amazing era in our state's development, and Flo played an enormous part in that. She will be long remembered by the people of Queensland as a kind, serving and successful representative of our state.
Early Childhood Education
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:52): Early childhood educators perform some of the most valuable work in our society for less than half the average Australian wage. Anyone who has had a child attend child care knows the importance of a good teacher and how central they are to a child's life. They are the people that we trust to be there when we can't be there. They help prepare our children for a lifetime of learning, and they do all of that for as little as $21 an hour. Early childhood workers stay in the industry despite the wages, not because of them. They love their work; they love our children; but they should not be expected to work for love alone. For almost five years, their union, United Voice, has been running a campaign before the Fair Work Commission to try and change this.
Early childhood education is historically a low-paid profession; it's also historically a female profession; and the two facts are not unrelated. There is a robust body of academic research that shows that child care is one of the many sectors that has been underpaid because of a pronounced tendency to undervalue work that is performed mostly by women—caring work, work that looks a lot like the work that women do for free in the home. Last year, I led an inquiry into the consequences of gender segregation in the workforce. We found that this tendency to undervalue women's work is one of the key drivers of the gender pay gap.
Today, however, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the attempt to correct in historic undervaluation of women's work in the childcare sector. The ruling confirms that our industrial relation system has no workable solution to the gender pay gap. It may be able to help an individual worker facing discrimination. It has very little to offer a whole sector of historically underpaid women.
The union spent years working with a top legal team to find a way through the rules to achieve wage justice for thousands of women. It should not be this hard, it should not be this long, it should not be this complicated and it should not be this expensive. Throughout the process, the government has been worse than useless. They refused to support the legal case before the commission or to assist with negotiations. Just yesterday, the Minister for Education and Training was dodging questions by saying that demands for equal pay would be settled through the Fair Work Commission process. Now we know what the outcome is.
This government will seemingly stop at nothing to pursue $65 billion of corporate tax cuts for Australia's biggest businesses, but it won't lift a finger—not a finger—to help the people who look after our children. On 27 March, early childhood educators will be walking off the job with the support of parents and centres across the country to try to make this government understand how important early childhood education is. I say this to those childcare workers: you will have my full support.
Burston, Senator Brian
Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (19:56): On Sunday last, 4 February 2018, the SydneyMorning Herald published an article with the front-page headline 'One Nation senator and top Hanson strategist misled Parliament'. The article implied that I'd misled the Senate in my first speech in claiming that I had lectured in teacher education at Newcastle university. Here are the facts: In 1981, the coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser initiated the forced amalgamation of the Newcastle CAE and Newcastle university. I was seconded to lecture at the Newcastle campus in that year. The period of secondment was for two years. The secondment was later extended for a further two years—that is, four years in total.
The forced amalgamation caused a public outcry and was finally completed in 1989. During the transition, there were several changes in the position of head of department of technical and further education. The first acting head of department was Mr John Bailey, who was later considered to be underqualified to lead a university department and was replaced by Dr Jim Lergessner in that position in, or about, 1983. The department consisted of head of department, Dr Jim Lergessner, senior lecturer, Mr John Dugas, and seven other lecturers. I was one of those lecturers. Those lecturers included Mr John Bailey, Mr Gordon Conn, Mr Roy Killen, Mrs Anne McKee, Ms Kerrylee Mitchell and Mr Grenville Twist. We were classified as university lecturers and had the full use of all university facilities.
During 1983 and 1984, I also lectured at the University of New England in Armidale, to remote trainee teachers, in teacher education, in two-week blocks, with another lecturer, Mr Grenville Twist. So, not only did I lecture at Newcastle university; I also lectured at the University of New England in Armidale. I repeat from my first speech:
At age 15, I began a five-year apprenticeship with BHP to become a boilermaker, then trained with Australia Post to became a draftsman. In my time, I have taught engineering drawing at TAFE and lectured in teacher education at Newcastle University.
The article published in the Sydney Sun-Herald is hurtful and defamatory, and I have commenced legal action to remedy the damage to my reputation.
Myanmar
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (19:59): Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to join UNICEF on a visit to a refugee camp in Bangladesh with my co-chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for UNICEF, National Party MP and member for Mallee, Andrew Broad. It was my first time visiting a refugee camp, and I knew it was going to be confronting, but as we arrived at Cox's Bazar and headed to Kutupalong refugee camp, I couldn't believe the extent of human misery. Crowded makeshift tents, made out of plastic and bamboo, went further than my eyes could see.
Some 688,000 refugees, including 399,000 children have fled Myanmar since 25 August last year. The eyes of the world have been on this humanitarian crisis that has been described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as 'a textbook example of ethnic cleansing'. The extreme violence and attacks by the Myanmar military have killed and persecuted thousands of men, women and children, ending the peace that elderly Rohingya still cling to.
We have seen it on our TVs, but standing face to face with them and hearing their stories was heartbreaking. We listened to harrowing stories of women being raped by soldiers whilst they watched their husbands being hanged. Many of the women are now pregnant, not knowing if they are carrying the child of their dead husband or of these Myanmar soldiers. We visited one of the UNICEF's child-friendly spaces and saw the drawings of what happened to their homes—children's drawings of houses being burnt, army helicopters shooting fire at their houses, people hanging from trees. Their innocent drawings brought the horror and conflict to life.
But I also saw the best of humanity. UNICEF and partner organisations are doing an incredible job. They have dug hundreds of water-bearing wells, installed some 16,000 toilets, vaccinated nearly a million children and adults against cholera and diphtheria and screened over 335,000 for malnutrition. I sat in a makeshift malnutrition clinic with women and their babies being weighed and doing an appetite test. Their will to survive and care for their families was so overwhelming. As a mother myself, I found it very emotional to see these mums wanting the best for their children after enduring such horrific violence and living in a miserable state of existence. They do not know what their future holds. Now, as we get closer to the monsoon season, what is already a dire humanitarian situation risks becoming a catastrophe, with the risk of landslides, flooding and disease. UNICEF and its partners are going to have to resettle thousands of refugees, cap existing wells and repair fragile structures.
I welcome Australia's contribution to this humanitarian response, but more needs to be done, especially to provide children with education and protection from trafficking. It is in the international community's interest to support peace and hold the government of Myanmar to account, to respect human rights and to provide safe and dignified return to their homes, or what is left of them. If that cannot occur, then Bangladesh, which has already been so generous, needs to be urged to allow the Rohingya to have a chance to work, be educated and settled. I want to thank UNICEF for all incredible work that they do, highlighting the plight of this humanitarian disaster, providing Andrew and me with the opportunity to visit and for the ongoing important fundraising work that they do on the ground every day, day in and day out, to support children's lives and, indeed, save children's lives in Cox's Bazar, in the refugee camp in Bangladesh.
Ovarian Cancer
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (20:03): I rise this evening to speak about ovarian cancer, as I do each February for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. The campaign for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month this year is Time For Action, which is right on the mark, because the statistics around ovarian cancer are horrific and we need to change them. Statistics clearly show that every day in Australia four women are diagnosed with the disease and three women die from its. This year ovarian cancer will take over a thousand mothers, daughters, grandmothers, sisters, aunties and friends from us—a truly devastating statistic.
I speak tonight about ovarian cancer, as I do each February, because it is something that I am so passionate about. Whilst some of what I have to say tonight may seem repetitive, it's extremely important that we keep talking about it, because we need to bring this type of cancer out into the open and create communities where it's okay to talk openly about the signs, symptoms and risk factors. We need to make ovarian cancer something that people are not shy or ashamed to talk about, because talking about it and sharing our experiences will help save lives.
One of the most terrifying things about ovarian cancer is how high the mortality rate is, which really comes down to the fact that around 70 per cent of women are diagnosed at an advanced stage because there is no early detection test. Even more frightening is that women are visiting the GPs around this country, on average, 3.2 times before being properly diagnosed. That is quite significant. I have spoken to women who have presented to their GP with symptoms but were told that they had irritable bowel syndrome, were constipated or just needed to eat more fibre. A huge part of the problem is that the symptoms are often dismissed as common discomforts that many women experience regularly. This is why ovarian cancer too often goes unchecked, why it is often only detected at an advanced stage and why people call it the silent killer. But we must not ignore the symptoms or pass them off as women's business. Understanding and awareness of the symptoms is absolutely crucial to the early detection of ovarian cancer.
This morning, we had the Teal Ribbon Breakfast function here at Parliament House and we were given a dose of perspective from speakers who were brave and inspirational in sharing their stories. We heard from Christine Keepence and her nephew Jack—what a wonderful young man he is. Christine and her family have had an unreasonable share of unfairness. The emotional, mental and physical impact that a diagnosis of cancer can have on family and friends is significant. In fact, it's earth-shattering. Christine's story painted a different picture of the impact that cancer and, in particular, ovarian cancer has on a family.
Christine asked the audience this morning who had done their family tree. She joked about how much fun doing your family tree can be—I haven't found the fun bit yet!—delving into the past and learning about your heritage. She said that there was a time when that was fun. But now, instead of doing a family tree, she's had to do a family cancer tree. Ms Keepence's mother was diagnosed with breast cancer at 50. Her father suffered liver cancer, and her little sister, Elisha Neave, died of ovarian cancer at 36. In one year, Christine Keepence's mother, father and sister were all dying of cancer under the same roof. Can you imagine it? It was heart-wrenching.
The BRCA2 gene is rampant in Christine's family, and, sadly, she was diagnosed with cancer herself, on her 50th birthday. But she is a survivor. For many families, the diagnosis of cancer turns anniversaries and birthdays that were once marked for celebration into reminders of diagnosis, treatment and death. In many families, the fun in doing your family tree is being replaced with a need to trace your family genetics and illnesses. I thank Christine for being such a powerful advocate for ovarian cancer and for reminding us all how important it is to know your family history when it comes to ovarian cancer and cancer in general.
I want to quickly thank Christine's nephew Jack, who flew all the way from Western Australia to speak with us this morning. Jack was only 11 when his mother, Christine's sister, passed away from ovarian cancer. Thank you, Jack, for your touching words this morning and for your ongoing efforts to raise awareness and understanding. You are living proof of just how deeply the diagnosis of cancer is felt by families. Your mother, I have no doubt, would be very proud of you, as I know your aunty was this morning.
I want to share the story of Kate, a 20-something-year-old woman who started spotting between periods and having unusual bloating and fatigue—all symptoms that women often explain away as something else. When Kate considered what was happening, she stopped taking the pill and, for months, her symptoms continued and, in fact, became worse. Finally, she went to the doctor. Ultrasounds showed that she had a nine-centimetre cyst on her ovary. But the doctor wasn't concerned and told her that 'all ovaries produce cysts, but this one just hasn't resolved itself.' Kate, fortunately, got a second opinion and was booked in for exploratory surgery. They found that the cyst had adhered to the wall of the bowel and was, in fact, cancerous. Kate ended up having both ovaries removed. They got it in time and, thankfully, she survived, but the physical and emotional toll on her and her family was enormous.
Kate's story highlights just how crucial it is that we take seriously and don't ignore the symptoms, like she initially did, and how important it is to seek a second opinion if it's necessary. As women, we need to empower ourselves by knowing the symptoms, the signs and our family history and by having open and early discussions with our doctor. We need better awareness amongst our GPs and health specialists, because it's not okay that women are seeing a GP more than three times before being properly diagnosed. There is no early detection test, so to ensure a fast diagnosis it is absolutely vital that GPs and health professionals are proactive and better trained in identifying symptoms.
The most effective way of identifying and combating ovarian cancer is through screening and genetic marker testing. Research to develop diagnostic detection screening tests for ovarian cancer must be funded adequately. I commend the researchers who are working hard to learn more about ovarian cancer, how to prevent it, how to treat it and how to care for women who are diagnosed with it and their families as well. It's a package. Nonetheless, it is the continuing responsibility of this government to provide more funding to support research in early diagnosis and treatment. In government, Labor invested more than $3.5 billion to combat cancer, and I'm very proud to say that the Shorten Labor government, when elected—if elected—will build on this with a $12 million commitment to life-saving ovarian cancer research. This investment will go a long way towards Ovarian Cancer Australia's national action plan for ovarian cancer research and will potentially prevent 2,500 cases of breast cancer and 800 cases of ovarian cancer.
As I said, the statistics are overwhelming. We need to change that. We need to make it a priority. This month is cancer awareness month. I commend the commitment that's been given by the government, because I really do believe that all of us in this chamber are very much aware of what needs to be done. I urge this government and my own colleagues to make it a priority. And I urge women to say, 'I'm not happy with that,' and seek that second opinion, because it's in all of our interests.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Williams ): Thank you for a very good speech, Senator Polley.
Middle East: Human Rights
Myanmar
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (20:13): Ahed Tamimi was arrested by the Israeli army in mid-December, along with her mother and cousin. She has since been denied bail and presented with a list of cobbled-together charges. She is now in jail. Ahed is a courageous young Palestinian woman. She's been subject to and witnessed oppression and violence from the Israeli army. Ahed's lawyer has said that she has faced long and aggressive interrogation sessions, sometimes into the night. Ahed's interrogators have also made threats against members of her family.
Magdalena Mughrabi, who works for Amnesty International, has said:
… the footage of this incident shows that she posed no actual threat and that her punishment is blatantly disproportionate …
Ahed Tamimi's ensuing arrest and military trial exposes the Israeli authorities' discriminatory treatment of Palestinian children who dare to stand up to ongoing, often brutal, repression by occupying forces.
In 2009, Ahed's village of Nabi Saleh began weekly protests against the occupation and especially against the illegal Israeli settlement of Halamish, which was stealing more land from Ahed's village and blocking access to the village water spring. Well before her arrest, at the age of 16, Ahed Tamimi had developed a strong understanding of political struggle and activism.
These are her words: 'We should extend our struggles to one another in order to end all the world's injustices.' It is widely recognised that Ahed, her family and her village have been targeted because they directly challenged the Israeli government's claim to be democratic, progressive and moral. Ahed's story is not just about one child. It is not even about one generation. Ahed's story has been echoed thousands of times over many past decades because of the violent and repressive actions of the occupying regime.
There are currently some 350 Palestinian children in Israeli prisons, and children as young as eight have been arrested by the Israeli military. Since the year 2000, Defence for Children International has reported that at least 8,000 Palestinian children have been arrested and prosecuted in Israeli military courts. Over 70 per cent of Palestinian children who go before Israeli military courts are denied bail. There is an almost 100 per cent conviction rate. Israel is the only country in the world that prosecutes children in military courts, denying them fundamental fair trial rights and protections. Palestinian children are often subject to ill treatment, including blindfolding and harsh interrogations without the presence of a lawyer or family member. They're often subject to solitary confinement and, in some cases, physical violence while they're held in prison.
Israel is a party to the Convention for the Rights of the Child; although it's hard to believe it when you hear the figures about being children held in jail. Under the convention, the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child must only be used as a last resort and for the shortest period of time. However, this is another example of how the Israeli authorities flout their obligations under international law. Palestinian children are paying the price with their childhood. On this issue, the Australian government remains silent. We should all raise our voices to free Ahed and all children jailed in Palestine.
On another matter: Woodside Petroleum has been involved in Myanmar since 2013. This company is the largest occupier in the offshore Rakhine Basin with interests in nine offshore blocks. In 2017, the company announced its intention to expand gas drilling with three new wells. However, according to a 2015 Southern Cross University report, a gas and oil pipeline has been laid from the location to Yunnan province in China. Gas has begun flowing through this pipeline, and land has been confiscated from local communities to facilitate this process. That is from the university report.
While evidence is scarce, it appears that the production of gas will impact the Rakhine province through onshore support centres such as a helicopter pad and distribution pipelines that connect to international customers. These Woodside activities directly impact Rohingya communities. It appears most likely that the Myanmar military simply removed Rohingya communities and confiscated their land without compensation in order to facilitate the industrial development for Woodside. I acknowledge that there is no direct proof of these developments, but there are significant and believable anecdotal reports. The Rohingya have been denied citizenship, meaning there is no official documentation of any of these actions within Myanmar. Foreign human rights agencies are denied access, as are the media.
Meantime, the Australian government remains mainly silent on the genocide taking place. The Australian government appears to be supporting Australian investment in Myanmar far beyond any deep concern for the Rohingya people. Woodside is getting particular attention. Several Australian companies, including Woodside, have formed bilateral agreements with the Myanmar government. They argue that it is better to encourage the government in Myanmar to be open to the world than to criticise their human rights abuses. Woodside remains focused on the interests of shareholders at the expense of international human rights obligations.
Woodside was among the first international oil and gas companies to enter Myanmar when that country first opened up for business. The bulk of the company's ground sits off the coast of Myanmar's Rakhine state, where most of the alleged atrocities have taken place. It is widely understood that any pipeline connecting Woodside's discoveries with Asian markets would most likely have to cross through Rakhine land. In 2017, Woodside Petroleum's chief executive, Peter Coleman, travelled to Myanmar. The public reason given by the company for the visit was to assess the humanitarian crisis. Such a high-profile visit at the time of the expulsion of Rohingya from Myanmar was also viewed as an attempt by the CEO to assess the local situation in terms of how best to protect the company's assets.
Myanmar is now being promoted as an investor's dream. This is from an ANZ report: Myanmar has 'the lowest unit labour cost market in Asia, average wages even lower than Africa'. The report judged was 'likely to remain so for a considerable period'. The report went on to find that Myanmar has:
… the "key to attracting foreign direct investment platforms to utilise the last untapped labour market in Asia". With abundant arable land waiting development, large hydrocarbon resources, and by harnessing "the mighty Mekong for hydro power generation, Myanmar can become a battery for industrialists" …
That's how it's being promoted to the international business world.
The more accurate way to describe this in terms of what is impacting the Rohingya people is in terms of exploitation, dispossession, violence, cruelty, death and, often, starvation. As well as ANZ and Woodside, the Australian company BlueScope Steel has been linked to bilateral engagements with Myanmar that discriminate against the Rohingya people.
The Rohingya people await a human-rights principled stand to come from Australia. Sadly, what we see, though, is that the Australian government continues to ignore the systematic and widespread abuse that's being inflicted on the Rohingya people. This has been detailed by the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights. In 2018, it really is time that the Australian government stood with the Rohingya people and put Australian business interests behind them so the Rohingya community can be restored to their land, have their dignity returned to them and ensure that their survival is absolutely guaranteed.
Jones, Mr Lindsay Gordon Bower
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (20:22): When my friend Lindsay Jones died last year, his friends gathered to remember a strong Labor man dedicated to social justice— a real Labor warrior. He didn't want any fuss. He just needed people to gather around and remember the good times and bad.
Lindsay was born in Blackall in 1939. His dad was a shearer and his mother was a teacher. He decided early that the values of the Labor Party were for him, and for the next 60 years he worked in and for the party. He held positions at every level at the state and local level: he was a candidate, he was a local councillor in the Toowoomba area, he also worked full-time in the party office as an official and, in his chosen job—the job that I think directed most of his life effort—as a community campaigner. Lindsay loved to campaign. He loved people. He loved to organise and most of all he loved to win elections. He didn't win as many as he wanted to, but he fought for years to ensure that Labor had the best possible chance to be with the community and to put forward our case—he just liked to campaign. I can't think of many Queensland candidates in that period who were not challenged, encouraged, advised and pushed by Lindsay Jones to get out there and do the job. I've never known anyone who liked to discuss strategies more than he did. His actual cry was, 'Are you with me? Are you with me?' That was the challenge to us as we were working in the field, to ensure that we were with him and we were out there. There was never time to rest; you had to keep up with the action.
When I first met Lindsay Jones, I was at school at a relatively small girls school in Toowoomba. At that time, in the 1960s and 1970s, when I met him, Lindsay Jones was the head athletics coach at Toowoomba Grammar. He coached that school to GPS championships—something that they hadn't done before—and he had a band of young men at that school that produced results that they didn't think they could, but they did under Lindsay Jones. My high school teacher decided it would be a good idea for Lindsay, with his experience, to come down and talk to us at the local girls' school to show us more about athletics. I think it was probably the only battle that Lindsay ever lost when he went from the full facilities at Toowoomba Grammar to our school, where we had never seen a hurdle or a shot-put or anything of that nature. We only had him for two days. He walked away and told me later that that was a campaign he did lose. But he brought those skills as an educator and as an organised person—he talked about the need to be organised—into his work for our party.
Lindsay joined the party in 1959 just after the major split in Queensland where, after many years of Labor government, we were not returned by the Queensland people for another 32 years. I don't think there were many weeks in those 32 years where Lindsay was not campaigning to ensure that we could do better. It was a turbulent time within the ALP. It was also a turbulent time within the community because that was the period of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen years in Queensland. There were a range of community campaigns going on that were looking at things ranging from the anti-Vietnam protests through to the peace movement, environmental issues and also the actual right to protest—the right to march. Those things were very important to Lindsay, and he worked very much with community groups, with other organisations, because he always believed that Labor was part of the wider community and didn't walk alone. Unless you made those links and connections, you would not be truly able to represent your community. Throughout that period, Lindsay built networks and he looked at developing real policy within our party.
These were tough times in the ALP in Queensland. There were significant difficulties, and a very strongly formed group was building up. Naturally Lindsay was involved in that, because what they wanted was more local engagement and more policy development. Lindsay was very strongly a champion for affirmative action, before many people were even talking about that. He truly accepted that there was a need to have more women and more people from different backgrounds involved in the party. This was not an easy fight, but he maintained this idea that we could grow, we could grow stronger and we could engage with more people.
Side by side with Lindsay for most of these years was his partner, Norma—a strong political activist herself. She was very active in the affirmative action program and also in women's reproductive rights, which didn't make her particularly popular in some parts of our party. While this reforming was going on in the 1970s, Lindsay and Norma were living in Toowoomba. The Toowoomba Labor Party branches became the centre of a national discussion about what should occur. If you go through the annals of Labor Party history, you will find documentation about Toowoomba local branches.
As with most strong activists in the party at this time, Lindsay was threatened with being expelled from the party—it almost became a sign of honour that you actually faced this process. There was a really interesting story about how the expulsion discussion at the local branch became a discussion around the rules. I found out, through the discussion about this process, about how the rules were overturned, and it was seen that the way the branch was trying to expel Lindsay did not meet the rules. He survived and was not expelled from the party that he loved, and he stayed on to be a loyal member for many, many more years. In fact, the reforming organisation to which he belonged did get the leadership in the Queensland party eventually, and those issues around building policy—about ensuring that you had local membership involvement and having people from all different backgrounds involved—did become the basis for a newer and stronger party.
I don't think anyone who worked with Lindsay was able to walk away unchanged. He challenged your views of the world, he challenged your views of the party, and he knew that we could work better. He actually wanted you to bring your ideas and your strength so that you felt valued and respected in your work. He loved working with people, and he built up networks that I think still exist today mainly because of the work that he, Norma and the many people who worked so strongly at that time did.
Lindsay will definitely be missed. He will not be forgotten, because I think the qualities he brought—the inspiration he brought and the joy he brought to working in the party—will be remembered into the future. He was a man of strong opinion, he was a man of real integrity and he was a man of immense energy. A champion athlete himself, he actually made sure that people looked after themselves when they were involved in their campaigns. In 2000 he was awarded the Centenary Medal for his contributions to sport, particularly in athletics, hockey and football. That was something that he treasured—that he was acknowledged in the wider community. I'm not sure whether that meant more to him than when he received his life membership for the ALP, but I know that they were both treasured for himself and for his family.
There are many people who are grateful to Lindsay Jones for the many things he brought to the party in Queensland—to the networks that he built with other community organisations and also because of his steadfast belief that we could do better. Those Labor values that were so important to him—that he learnt from his dad, who was a shearer in the bush, and which he never forgot—belong to all of us, and if people truly followed those values we would be able to put the case to the community as to why they should re-elect and continue to re-elect Labor governments.
I really want to thank you, Norma, for sharing Lindsay with us, for the great partnership you provided us with and for the inspiration you gave to so many of us. For you and your family, I can say from all of us that we are still with Lindsay and we will stay with him for many years into the future.
Western Australia: Australian Labor Party
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:31): Tonight, I am absolutely delighted to be able to introduce to the Senate five fantastic women who have been pre-selected by the Labor Party as our WA Labor candidates in Liberal-held marginal seats in Western Australia.
My good friend Melissa Teede is Labor's candidate for the seat of Canning. She has deep connections to the seat of Canning and the whole region, starting her career as a teacher in Armadale. Melissa has spent many years working in the TAFE sector and in schools right across Western Australia. But more recently, and very relevantly to the challenges for the people of Canning, she has been working as the CEO of the Peel Development Commission. Through this work, I know firsthand her strategic vision for and commitment to the region—what it will take to deliver jobs and a future for the communities in Mandurah and around the Peel region, many of which are quite disadvantaged and really need strategic economic insight and commitment to get the settings right for the region.
Melissa spent many years of her life as a single parent, and I've spoken to her about her experiences with and the importance of affordable, quality education: schools, TAFE and university. She's talked to me many times about the importance of a good education to her community and to our nation's future. She's talked to me about the fact that it was Labor's commitment to higher education that meant she was able to fulfil her dream of becoming a teacher—indeed, doing that at the same time as raising a daughter of her own, on her own.
Another wonderful candidate, whose name will be no surprise to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams, is Hannah Beazley. Hannah Beazley is Labor's candidate in Swan, where she grew up. She has worked in policy and education, and she has owned her own small business. She has young children, like me, and she knows firsthand what it means for ordinary families to strive to get by. She is following in the footsteps of the remarkable Hon. Kim Beazley, who, as we know, was a former member for Swan and a former leader of our great party.
What some people might not know about Hannah in terms of her extraordinary resilience as a person is that she had a significant health scare in her early 20s, and she was only able to access new life-saving drugs because of Medicare and the PBS. She believes that access to health care should not be dependent on your credit card, but on your Medicare card.
I'm also pleased to introduce to you this evening Melita Markey, Labor's candidate for Stirling. She is a proud member of the Stirling community and loves volunteering at Stirling's local sporting clubs. Also important—and this is an issue close to my own heart—is her work at the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia, where she is their chief operating officer. Melita is someone who works tirelessly day in, day out for victims of asbestos disease and their families.
I'd also like to introduce to you tonight Lauren Palmer, Labor's candidate in Hasluck. She is a remarkable young woman who has been a tireless advocate for workers and has been working with the Maritime Union for some time now. She has demonstrated her passion and commitment for lifting the rights of workers, for workers' safety and for access to education for all.
I'm delighted that I have now begun to get to know the wonderful Kim Travers, who will be Labor's candidate in Pearce. She is a decorated police officer, who has had an extremely long and successful career serving the Western Australian community. She's led major drug investigations, but, significantly, she's also spent time as the chief investigator with the United Nations in East Timor. In speaking to Kim, you really get the sense from her—whether you're talking about domestic violence, drug use in communities or marginalised Indigenous communities—that she really has a wealth of knowledge about communities and justice, and an incredible capacity to bring people together to tackle really hard problems.
So, these five remarkable women are joining the WA team, along with Anne Aly, Matt Keogh, Josh Wilson, Madeleine King, Senator Glenn Sterle, Senator Sue Lines, my good friend Senator Patrick Dodson and, of course, me. We will be standing together to take the fight up to Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal government. We will be out and about talking to the people of Western Australia about the things that really matter to them: health, education and jobs.
What's really apparent to me in my home state of WA is that the Liberal Party is not out and about in our local communities talking about these things. We're the ones listening and hearing it on the ground in our communities. What we hear about is a complete absence of Malcolm Turnbull in the state. Instead, he's too busy over here—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Williams ): Excuse me, Senator Pratt, that's the second time now. Refer to people by their correct titles, please.
Senator PRATT: Thank you for drawing me to order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, can be seen instead to be too busy talking here in the eastern states about corporate tax cuts to the big end of town—too busy looking after his friends over east, too busy cutting penalty rates for working people and too busy ignoring the ordinary needs of Australians.
It's also a government that's ignored the needs of Western Australia for too long. The government has been too slow to act on giving Western Australia its fair share of the GST. You've been able to see that debate take place in this place today—their absolute confusion and defensiveness about where they want to take this policy. They are too busy talking about Tasmania, South Australia and other places around the country, and have not spent enough time talking to Western Australia and putting real money on the table. WA is not getting its fair share of the GST. People in WA know it, I know it and Bill Shorten knows it.
I'm delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has said he will invest $1.6 billion in a fair share for a WA fund. That will bring Western Australia's share of the GST up to an equivalent of 70c in the dollar. This is what our state needs. We have an incredibly fragile state budget and we need this investment in job-creating infrastructure to bring more jobs to the people of WA, yet we still hear silence from our Prime Minister and from the federal Liberal government. The Prime Minister has barely been to Western Australia, let alone made any commitments for our fair share. A clear choice that is emerging for our state in WA—and one that will become a key political theme of the year ahead—is that only a future Labor government will be prepared to deliver to Western Australia and give us a fair go. I'm looking forward to getting out and about and campaigning with our new candidates to talk to our community about these important issues.
Tasmanian Election
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (20:41): There is something rotten at the heart of Tasmania's democracy that's been festering for many decades and still corrupts our parliament and our government decision-making to this day. I want to name up the problem: it's Labor and Liberal politicians who choose to outsource government decision-making to powerful vested interests who are only interested in profit. In return, those politicians and their parties get political donations, and many politicians get jobs when they leave the parliament.
This culture started with the old HEC, the Hydro-Electric Commission, which effectively ran Tasmania for decades. They dammed some of Tasmania's most special places, including Lake Pedder, and acted as a cash cow for governments by ratcheting up debt off budget and transferring funds via dividends to pay for political promises that the 'con fund' could not afford. When the HEC lost its influence after the Greens and the conservation movement—with the help of the Labor Party—saved the Franklin, the forestry industry took over the job of giving instructions to Labor and Liberal Party politicians. But, along the way, other powerful interests, including the gaming sector, had succeeded in subverting the will of the Tasmanian people by buying politicians to further their own ends. This corrupting and corrosive influence of big business, big money and big politics is coming to the surface again with an election due in just a few short weeks. Tasmania Incorporated, or Tas Inc, is a network of so-called businessmen—the old boys—who think they own Tasmania and who think they have some divine right to profit from its treasures no matter what they despoil and no matter how much social harm they cause. They have for far too long had an outside say in what happens in our great state. It is Tasmania, that beautiful island, and its people who lose out every time.
In 1989, northern Tasmanian businessman Edmund Rouse tried to bribe Labor MP Jim Cox to cross the floor and bring down the Field Labor minority government in an attempt to put Liberal Robin Gray in power and prevent the Greens from being the balance of power. This shameful affair was exposed at the Carter royal commission, one of the very few times that members of Tas Inc have been held accountable. Revelations were made of dollars in brown paper bags changing hands, not to mention 10,000 bucks in cash hidden in freezer bags in Robin Gray's home. Rouse went to jail, but the corruption has not gone away; it's just taken on new forms.
Before the 1989 election, North Broken Hill, who wanted to build a pulp mill at Wesley Vale, announced the recall of the Tasmanian parliament to water down the approvals process. That's right—the Tasmanian parliament was recalled on NBH letterhead! That's how corrupt it gets in my home state of Tasmania.
The then environment minister, Graham Richardson—he of the 'whatever it takes' mantra—said:
At no time in Australian history have we ever seen an abrogation of parliamentary sovereignty in the way we have on this particular mill.
This corruption was repeated years later when Gunns tried to build its Tamar Valley mill, with Paul Lennon as Tasmanian Premier. Gunn's was permitted to ditch the assessment process run by the independent Resource Planning and Development Commission, when the company was secretly given the heads up by Tasmania's most senior public servant that the project was about to be assessed as being critically non-compliant by the RPDC. Gunns Limited lawyers then wrote the enabling legislation that passed through the Tasmanian parliament. Of course, a few short months after leaving parliament, Paul Lennon was appointed to the board of Gunns. And while the company has folded since, the players remain the same. Former Gunns boss, John Gay, convicted of insider trading, had his ban on being a director for five years relaxed, such that he now owns a company that stands to profit from the Liberals' efforts to log protected native forests in the Tarkine.
It is not just Mr Gay or the Labor and Liberal parties that have been bought out by Tas Inc. The Jacqui Lambie Network's lead candidate in Lyons, Michael Kent, is one of the most prominent members of Tas Inc. and one of the most brazen about its corrosive influence. He was front and centre, and the only one to out himself, in the shady Tasmanians For a Better Future campaign, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning against minority government during the 2006 state election campaign. But now that he's seen a chance to benefit himself and line his own pockets, suddenly he is a massive fan of minority government. He's also a massive hypocrite.
Michael Kent is a Liberal masquerading as an Independent seeking the balance of power in Tasmania's parliament so he can deliver more pokies misery to the Tasmanian people and more fish farms to destroy the marine environment and Tasmania's beautiful coastline. How do we know this? Because Mr Kent wrote a book about it. In his book he said:
I’ve always worked on the principle that whoever assists me in the direction I want to go then I’m happy to assist them.
In other words, you scratch Mr Kent's back and he will scratch yours.
On the big issues of fish farms and poker machines—crucial issues in the upcoming Tasmanian election—we know Mr Kent would conduct himself in the appalling transactional way in which he has meddled in Tasmanian politics for decades, because he's said so himself. He told the Australian newspaper on Monday this week that he would have 'a conscience vote on the key issues of fish farming and pokies', because 'on poker machines and fish farms, we have a difference of views'—speaking about Jacqui Lambie. There it is: Mr Kent has a different view from Ms Lambie on two of the most critical and high-profile election issues facing Tasmania.
So a vote for Jacqui Lambie and Michael Kent in the electorate of Lyons, where he is running, is a vote in support of the massive expansion of fish farms on the east coast of Tasmania and on the Tasman Peninsula and for a massive privatisation of public waterways that will destroy the marine environment in local area. It is also a vote to keep pokies in Tasmanian communities. Astoundingly, Mr Kent is on record as saying 'there is absolutely no pokies addiction in regional Tasmania'. Mr Kent, get out, talk to the folks and have a listen because you're wrong about that, too. What he means is he'll sell his vote on pokies to the highest bidder. He said to The Mercury in 2015:
You’ve got to have a jolly good memory to be in politics, you have to worry about what you said and when to whom. You almost have to be a good liar and that would be no good for me …
Well, Mr Kent, we remember what you said about cosy deals you've done over the years. We remember you confessing to try to buy the 2006 election for your mate Paul Lennon and we will be making sure the Tasmanian people remember it too.
I want to say one more thing about Tas Inc. Labor has finally and belatedly stepped out of the pocket of Federal Hotels and adopted part of the Greens policy of removing poker machines from clubs and pubs. This is a good thing. It doesn't erase the damage Labor allowed poker machines to do in Tasmania for decades and the tens of thousands of dollars in donations they received from the pokie barons. Of course, that damage in our community can only be measured in lives ruined. But it does show that it is possible to stand up to the power of vested interests.
With the Greens, and now Labor, planning to remove pokies from pubs and clubs in Tasmania, the only thing that can now deliver for the pokies barons is a Liberal majority government. Interestingly, once Labor's decision was made, Federal Hotels boss Greg Farrell said, 'We will be reviewing our policy towards political donations in the coming weeks, to both parties.' You bet they will! What a surprise! Federal Hotels usually give, of course, to both Labor and Liberal to secure their obscene profits. Remember, 70 cents in every dollar put into a poker machine in Tasmania leaves the state and ends up in the pockets of one of Sydney's richest families.
In the months since the policy announcement, Federal Group and similar bodies have been spending thousands of dollars attacking Labor and the Greens on primetime TV. Some of the millions of dollars they leeched from Tasmanian families and pokies addicts are now buying banners and TV ads seeking to leech votes to their new puppets in the Liberal Party and the Jacqui Lambie Network. To them, and to every member of Tas Inc., I say this: bring it on. The Greens have fought you for decades. We're going to fight you now and we will keep fighting your corrosive influence for as long as it takes to restore a genuine democracy in my home state. Tasmania does not belong to the Michael Kents and the Tas Inc.s to despoil for profit; the place is worth so much more. The people are worth so much more than just fodder for corporate profits. The future of our beautiful island, our archipelago and its people, are not Michael Kent's and Jacqui Lambie's to gamble away.
Nuclear Weapons
Senator RICE (Victoria) (20:51): I had a rare privilege last week. I met someone who survived the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a hibakusha, Mr Terumi Tanaka. Mr Tanaka was 13 and living in Nagasaki at the time the US dropped their devastating bombs. Since then, he has devoted his life to campaigning against nuclear weapons. He's the co-chair of Nihon Hidankyo, the Japanese confederation of atomic bomb survivors. There are around 400,000 people that were killed by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and approximately 400,000 survivors. The average age of the survivors who are still with us is over 82. Mr Tanaka, whom I met, is 85. These survivors aren't going to be around for much longer. As I said, I felt very privileged to meet him.
When we spoke he told me of the stigma he has lived with now for over 60 years, being a hibakusha—a survivor of the bombs. He spoke of hibakusha not wanting to marry and have children because of the risk of deformities and illness due to radiation poisoning, and others who would have dearly loved to have married but were shunned and couldn't find anyone that would accept them. Ten years ago, he spoke at the UN of his experience. He said then:
I am a survivor of the Nagasaki A-bombing of August 9, 1945. I was 13 years old and was inside my house located at 3.2 kilometres from the blast center. Suddenly I felt a brilliant flash. While feeling that flash changing colours from white to blue, orange and red, I lost consciousness. After a while, I found myself under several panes of glass blown by the blast. Miraculously, I did not suffer heavy injuries. Though I had to go through hardships as the Hibakusha (A-bomb survivor), anyhow I could survive and today speak before you as a living witness of the incident.
However, I lost five of my family members all at once—my grandfather, uncle, two aunts and a cousin, university student who had been back from his school in Tokyo. Hit by intense heat rays, they were burned directly or trapped under the clashed house and burned to death. My uncle, who escaped instant death without any apparent injuries eventually died with high fever, and destruction of his body cells by radiation. With my own hands, I cremated the body of my aunt in the field, who survived only a few days after the bombing with heavy burns. This sad experience at the age of 13 and the scenes of A-bomb hell on the ground keep coming back to me vividly even after about 63 years.
But, when we met, Mr Tanaka spoke overwhelmingly of hope for the future, hope that the world was finally coming to its senses, hope for a world without nuclear weapons and with no more hibakusha.
There was something else that was inspirational about our meeting, and that was that I met him on the Peace Boat, which has been touring Australia for the last fortnight. The Peace Boat is a cruise ship with a difference. It's Japanese based, and a typical voyage has 1,000 passengers. Its mission is building a culture of peace around the world. The Peace Boat's first voyage was organised in 1983 by a group of Japanese university students as a response to government censorship regarding Japan's past military aggression in the Asia-Pacific. They chartered a ship to visit neighbouring countries, with the aim of learning firsthand about the war from those who experienced it and initiating people-to-people exchange. It has now grown into an ongoing and powerful part of the international peace movement, with its core focus being the campaign to rid the world of nuclear weapons once and for all.
ICAN, the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, were proud hosts of the Peace Boat in Australia. My former colleague Scott Ludlam has joined the boat on its voyage back to Australia, as an ICAN ambassador. Other special guests on board include Karina Lester, a Yankunytjatjara-Anangu second-generation survivor of the devastating Maralinga nuclear tests. The mood on board the boat was one of optimism. Despite Trump's war of words with the North Koreans, despite no end to the hostilities in the Middle East, the peace movement is on the up. The magnificent work of ICAN is a big part of this. The ambitious determination of a small group of people from Melbourne to work for a treaty to rid the world of nuclear weapons has grown in the last decade to be a massive international movement that has succeeded in having such a treaty adopted. It has been a huge achievement, which of course was so appropriately recognised last year with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. As former Senator Ludlam said in his address to the UN in Geneva last July when the treaty was formally adopted:
This treaty will change the way these weapons are spoken of all over the world, including in the states not represented here today. It helps us, as Parliamentarians and civil society representatives, to build the case for abolition.
As your work in here is now so close to its conclusion, for those of us returning to nuclear weapons states and their allies, our work is really only just beginning.
We commit to all of you … to make our way home and campaign for our governments to recognise that this treaty is the best chance we have to build a truly secure world free of nuclear weapons. One by one, we will bring them into the room.
In the vote on the treaty text at the UN, 122 countries voted in favour, and only one voted against. Sixty-nine nations didn't vote, including all of the nuclear weapon states and, sadly, Australia. Since then 56 countries have ratified the treaty, and five countries have been global leaders and have signed the treaty, which brings me to the nub of what I want to say tonight.
Despite the clarity of the disaster that any use of nuclear weapons would cause, despite the potential of global nuclear holocaust, despite the stories told over and over again by people like the brave and honourable survivor Mr Terumi Tanaka, Australia is woefully resistant to this treaty. We have much work to do to bring Australia into the room. New Zealand is in, Ireland is in, Austria is in, but not Australia. Why not? Because we are joined at the hip to the US. We can't seem to think for ourselves, or we won't think for ourselves, because this might upset the US. We are deeply engaged with US military bases on our soil. We are apologists for US nuclear posturing. We are complicit in the increasing threat of nuclear disaster. We host 1,250 US Marines and a dozen combat aircraft in Darwin in the Northern Territory. We have joint intelligence facilities in Western Australia and Pine Gap near Alice Springs. We conduct regular joint training exercises.
And where are the Labor Party on US nuclear war capacity, on our complicity, on our resistance to a treaty? Despite some brave souls in the Labor Party speaking out—and I commend them for that—overall, Labor are cheek-by-jowl with the government. Support for US bases on our soil is absolutely bipartisan, Tweedledum and Tweedledee. As far as I know, Bill Shorten hasn't congratulated ICAN on their Nobel Peace Prize, just like Malcolm Turnbull hasn't.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Williams ): Mr Shorten and Prime Minister Turnbull.
Senator RICE: Yes, Mr Shorten—and just like Prime Minister Turnbull has not. Labor's Defence spokesperson, Mr Richard Marles, late last year was quoted as saying:
I'm absolutely up for a discussion on growing the US relationship in terms of however, whatever, it wants to involve itself with here.
The Marines rotation in Darwin has been a huge success and there has been an ongoing discussion to look at ways that can be developed, evolved and enhanced.
We can head in a different direction and the Greens are leading the push to do so. We could have a government working for peace and working globally for a ban on nuclear weapons, joining the growing number of countries across the world that are doing so. But to do that we need to have people in our parliaments who will vote for change. There is no point having members of parliament, whether it is Labor or Liberal, holding personal views and then voting in the parliament against world peace—who are apologists for the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. I urge our government and the Labor Party to listen and to learn so that together we can realise the potential and the optimism of this resurgent global movement for peace.
Environment
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (21:01): I'd like to speak tonight reflecting on a couple of things, triggered by some recent visits to Central and North Queensland, the state I have the honour of representing on behalf of the Greens, and also some of the debates in this place, just in the last couple of days, and some media reports as well, all of which go to the state of our environmental protection laws, both at national level and in my own state of Queensland.
It's often hard not to reminisce, if that's quite the right word, about past decisions of this chamber, when you're in the circumstance I'm in of coming back after a 10-year break. I was in this place literally last century. It was well over two decades ago that I first got involved in Senate related activities and work, and it is just over 20 years since I first came into this chamber. It's always frustrating to see some of the failures of the past continue to be unresolved. But it's also useful sometimes to look at some of the key decisions that were made, that have managed to set benchmarks and to at least hold some ground, preventing things declining further—what times those benchmarks have managed to hold firm to protect more negative things being done and, in the case of the environment, more damage being done.
Just recently I was in Far North Queensland, meeting with community organisations, fighting to protect not just the natural environment in their area, but also the quality of life and the future of their communities. From the Gold Coast on the southern border, right up into the far north, and particularly on the coast, there is case after case of ridiculous, overblown, inappropriate property developments of the type that we are unfortunately all too familiar with in Queensland, often with a thin veneer, a tinge of fake green, about them. I was meeting with local residents at Kuranda just last week at a place that calls itself an eco-tourism venture. It's quite extraordinary. It's clearly just a massive attempt to make a quick buck out of a completely inappropriate, oversized residential property development. It shows the inadequacy of the environmental protection laws in Queensland.
It certainly shows why we need to have the Queensland government act as quickly as possible on their pre-election pledge to legislate to ban donations from property developers, because time and time again we're seeing completely inappropriate use of land—clearly at the behest of developers trying to make quick bucks. This is not just a risk for local environmental values but often it is about the ability of other people already in the community, people who have been there for long periods of time, even to be able to protect the quality of their drinking water—their own water resources, their own ongoing small businesses and their own economic activity, which are all part of the sustainability of a community fabric. Those are put at risk by inappropriate developments.
Another one, again, is something people are trying to push onto the community at Mission Beach. I met with some people there about an attempt to expand a few boat ramps in Clump Point at Mission Beach into a small marina. I remember having people concerned about that when I was in the Senate last time, over 10 years ago. People managed to stop that type of inappropriate development then, but the proponent just goes away, comes back, rebadges it and then it's back again. They just keep coming back and back, trying to find ways to override the interests and the will of the local community, often with the support of a local council, or a person from one of the establishment parties in key positions of power, or a minister who is giving favourable treatment and who is able to find their way around the inadequacies in the state laws.
That is why it's so important that we have strong national environment laws. Of course, there is a role for states to have an environmental protection regime, but we need to have an overarching consistent environmental framework that ensures that matters of national environmental significance are properly regulated, properly assessed and properly protected. We need to make sure that the community is able to have a say in what happens in their own area and that their will is not overridden by corporations.
Seeing a string of articles just recently in The Guardian has given me cause to reflect about the inadequacies in our national environment laws. I guess it's particularly interesting from my point of view, having been a person from the last century—literally 1999—who was part of the bringing into being of those national environment laws in the early days, as it turned out, of the Howard Liberal government and when Senator Robert Hill was the environment minister. I guess that it's particularly ironic for me, because at that time it was a contentious decision due to the vagaries of the politics at the time. The Labor Party were opposing the changes, apart from the desire to lock in the inadequate regional forest agreements. They were very keen to do that but they weren't supporting changes to broaden the environment laws because they didn't think they were strong enough.
The Greens at the time, especially ironic for me at the moment, were also opposed to it for not going far enough, and I copped a bit of a spray from the Greens leader at the time. The environment movement itself was split. The peak environment conservation bodies in my own state in Queensland, the one in Tasmania and a couple of national environmental organisations were supportive of the attempts at least to modernise the previous almost non-existent national environment laws. But, again, other environment groups were strongly concerned that they needed to go further.
From my point of view, it makes it all the more interesting to see how those laws are now being administered. We have seen what happens when there are areas of law that are actually quite strong in theory but where there are governments that are not interested in ensuring that they are administered: it is very difficult to get them properly applied. When you add to that deliberate underfunding of sections of the department so that they can't monitor activities, deliberate politicisation of decisions so that there is no independent assessment of the criteria and repeated attempts to lock the community out of ensuring that our own laws are being enforced, then you can see why we need to have a strong upgrading of our national environment laws.
As was stated in one of The Guardian articles, when the laws were passed in 1999 they were a significant advance on what was there before. There was almost no environmental protection, apart from the World Heritage laws, and even those—it's worth saying that the very first World Heritage bill put in this place was in the very early 1980s. Senator Colin Mason, who was an Australian Democrat senator from New South Wales, brought laws that were then taken up by the Hawke government when it came in under the pledge to protect the Franklin River and stop the dam. But they only applied to World Heritage areas.
The ability to expand those laws led to key areas being protected, such as Mission Beach in Queensland. While I was there, people pointed out the areas of vegetation, key cassowary habitat and wildlife corridors that were outside the World Heritage area but which were able to be protected because of the expanded environmental laws that then environment minister Peter Garrett protected using those expanded environmental powers. Of course, in South-East Queensland, the Traveston Crossing Dam was able to be protected from the desire of the Beattie Labor government to build what would've been a terrible dam, I might say. It would have destroyed not only some threatened species but some very valuable prime agricultural land, and it would have damaged the local community as well. So, it's worked here and there, but clearly it's failed in significant areas.
It's pleasing to see reports that a range of Labor Party branches are passing motions, encouraging the Labor Party leader to put stronger national environment laws in place and to introduce an independent watchdog. I certainly hope the Labor leader takes that on board. It's actually one part of a much more comprehensive policy that the Greens announced before the last federal election and it's certainly something we'll be pushing further over the course of this year, leading into the next federal election. We already outlined, a number of years ago, all of the areas where our national environment laws need to be strengthened, particularly with regard to ensuring the community has a say. This is an area where the Abbott government in particular sought to remove the community's powers time and time again. But it's also worth saying that over that period, despite opposing the environment laws coming in in 1999, Labor had six years in government in which they could've strengthened those environment laws and done all the things that they're now being urged to do, but they didn't. We hope this time around they take on board the Greens' and others' suggestions to dramatically expand national environment law powers. That's something the Greens will be pushing further over the course of this year.
Senate adjourned at 21:11
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled pursuant to standing order 61(1) (b):
Documents t o be presented by the President
1. Access to unpublished committee documents—Report to the Senate—Parliamentary Library Committee relating to the 1948 acquisition of the Nan Kivell collection.
Government documents
2. Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights)—Report for 2016-17.
3. Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)—Report for 2016-17.
4. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—Report for 2016-17 in relation to compliance with the statutory funding agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp).
5. Dairy Australia Limited—Report for 2016-17.
6. Dairy Produce Act 1986—Report for 2016-17 in relation to compliance with the statutory funding agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Dairy Australia Limited.
7. Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force—Report for 2016-17.
Committee reports and government responses presented out of sitting for consideration today
1. Community Affairs References Committee—Value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs—Interim reports [2] and final report.
2. Environment and Communications References Committee—Shark mitigation and deterrent measures—Report.
3. Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program (CDP)—Report.
4. Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Delivery of National Outcome 4 of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children—Report.
5. Migration—Joint Standing Committee—No one teaches you to become an Australian: Report of the inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes—Report and corrigendum.
6. Senators' Interests—Standing Committee—Register of senators' interests incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations lodged between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2017.
7. Community Affairs References Committee—Final report—Prevalence of different types of speech, language and communication disorders and speech pathology services in Australia—Government response.
8. Economics Legislation Committee—Report—Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016 [Provisions]—Government response.
9. Economics References Committee—Report—Australia's general insurance industry: sapping consumers of the will to compare—Government response.
11. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Report—Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017 [Provisions] and Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017 [Provisions]—Government response.
12. Environment and Communications References Committee—Report—Game on: more than playing around – The future of Australia's video game development industry—Government response.
13. National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—1st report of the 45th Parliament—The rollout of the National Broadband Network—Government response.
14. Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—171st report—International Trade in Endangered Species – Amendments; Women in Combat Duties – Reservation Withdrawal; Generation IV Nuclear Energy – Accession—Government response concerning the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Flora and Fauna.