2016-08-30
45
1
1
Senate
0
1
Tuesday, 30 August 2016
OPENING OF THE PARLIAMENT
1
OPENING OF THE PARLIAMENT
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
1
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Commission to Administer the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance
1
Senators Sworn
1
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
2
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
President
2
11:12
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
Clerk, I remind the Senate that the time has come when it is necessary for the Senate to choose one of its members to be President. I propose to the Senate for its President Senator Parry, and I move:
That Senator Parry take the chair of the Senate as President.
The Clerk: Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, Senator Parry is elected President of the Senate and will take the chair, in accordance with the standing orders.
Senator Parry having been conducted to the dais—
11:13
The PRESIDENT
e5v
Senators, thank you. I really appreciate it and I am deeply humbled by the confidence shown in me, especially being elected unopposed. So thank you very much. I intend to continue my presidency as I did in the previous two years. I am a fierce fighter for the independence of the Senate and the independence of the parliament from the executive, but also acknowledging the executive has a role to perform and the parliament should assist that executive. Equally, I will try and impose discipline on the chamber, as I have in the past, in an even-handed manner, and I expect that the Senate will respond likewise. Let's show the Australian public that we can be a respectful place of debate, of intelligent debate, and pass and debate legislation in a very constructive manner—even though there will be differences from time to time, I am sure.
Could I also suggest to the Senate that, as senators think about the formation of committees—in particular, additional committees—we do consider the workload of the Senate staff and the institution of the Senate, so we do not have too many committee hearings, too many committee reports and devalue the workload of the Senate. We have a high reputation around the world for the way that the Senate does handle committee work and the deliberations and the findings of many of those committee reports. Equally, I think senators should also realise that senators have a finite capacity in which to serve on these committees and to attend hearings and travel to various parts of Australia to undertake that work, so I just do ask senators to be cognisant of that particular workload.
And, finally, I am here as a friend and as a confidant if you need to speak to me about anything, if you need assistance. In particular I direct those remarks to newer senators. I am here in a very impartial way—a confidential way—to assist you as senators to perform your roles. And I want to make sure that this Senate remains a fine institution and I will be your servant to that end. Thank you.
11:15
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
Mr President, on behalf of government senators and, I dare say, I may say on behalf of all senators might I congratulate you on your re-election to the office of President of the Senate. It speaks volumes of the very high regard in which you are held in this chamber that you were re-elected unopposed.
Senator Parry, you have served the Senate since you were first elected as a senator for Tasmania in 2004. You were the Deputy President of the Senate for three years before your first term as President, which began on 7 July 2014. In that term as President you demonstrated two of the great qualities of a presiding officer: you were firm but you were fair. And in the past three years you won the respect of all in this chamber for the even-handed and firm manner in which you conducted your office. You have been a good president, Mr President, and I predict that in your second term as President of the Senate you will rise to become a great president—one of the great presidents of the Senate.
11:17
Senator WONG
00AOU
South Australia
Mr President, on behalf of the opposition I congratulate you on your election—or your re-election—as President. We acknowledge and respect your commitment to and willingness to defend the independence of this institution, the Senate. We look forward to your good judgement, your fairness and on occasion your forbearance. We wish you well.
Sitting suspended from 11:18 to 14 : 25
Presentation to Governor-General
3
14:25
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
I wish to inform honourable senators that the Governor-General will be pleased to receive Mr President and such honourable senators as desire to accompany him in the Members Hall immediately.
The PRESIDENT
e5v
Honourable senators, I invite you to accompany me to the Members Hall, where I shall present myself to His Excellency the Governor-General as the choice of the Senate to be its President.
Sitting suspended from 14:25 to 15:00
The President and honourable senators proceeded to the Members Hall and having returned—
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
3
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
DOCUMENTS
10
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
10
Consideration
10
17:01
Senator BUSHBY
HLL
Tasmania
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of documents.
Leave granted.
Senator BUSHBY
HLL
I move:
That the documents, committee reports and government responses just tabled at item 10 on the order of business be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day and be considered on Thursday, 1 September 2016 at general business.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
10
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Commission to Administer the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance
10
17:02
The PRESIDENT
e5v
I report that, accompanied by honourable senators, this afternoon I presented myself to the Governor-General as the choice of the Senate as President. The Governor-General congratulated me upon my election and presented me with a commission to administer to senators the oath for affirmation of allegiance. I table the commission.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
10
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
17:02
The PRESIDENT
e5v
I inform the Senate that I have received a copy of the opening speech which his Excellency the Governor-General was pleased to deliver to both houses of the parliament.
Ordered that consideration of the Governor-General's opening speech be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
BUSINESS
10
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
10
17:02
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
by leave—I move:
That standing order 3(4) be suspended to enable the Senate to consider business other than that of a formal character before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's opening speech has been adopted.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
11
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
17:03
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
by leave—I can inform the Senate that, following the election held on 2 July this year, His Excellency the Governor-General commissioned the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister, to form a government. Ministers and assistant ministers were appointed on 19 July 2016. For the information of honourable senators, I table a full list of the ministry. The document lists all ministers and assistant ministers and the offices they hold. It shows those ministers who comprise the cabinet, and it provides details of representation arrangements in each chamber.
I can inform the Senate that the Prime Minister has reappointed me as the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He has reappointed Senator Cormann as the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and reappointed Senator Fifield as the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I can further inform the Senate that Senator Bushby will continue in his role as Chief Government Whip in the Senate, and that Senator Fawcett and Senator Smith have both been re-elected as deputy government whips in the Senate.
I congratulate those honourable senators on their reappointment to the Senate leadership, as well as Senator Canavan on his promotion to the cabinet. I also would like to take this opportunity to congratulate senators opposite who have recently been appointed to shadow ministerial roles and other offices within the opposition.
Finally, Mr President, I assure you that, just as we sought to do in the last parliament, we the government will once again work with you and, indeed, with all senators to ensure the orderly running of this chamber and the good governance of the Commonwealth. I thank the Senate.
SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
11
SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
17:05
Senator WONG
00AOU
South Australia
by leave—I advise the Senate that, subsequent to the election, the caucus of the federal parliamentary Labor Party has re-elected me to serve as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and Senator Conroy has been re-elected Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
I further advise that Senator Urquhart has been elected to serve as Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate—making it almost an entirely Tasmanian lock-in!—and Senators Bilyk and McAllister have been elected to serve as deputy opposition whips. Senator Dastyari has agreed to serve as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator WONG
00AOU
Pause for effect!
Senator Conroy
3L6
Be afraid; be very afraid!
Senator WONG
00AOU
I wish to congratulate all senators on their appointments, and to acknowledge and thank particularly former senator Anne McEwen and Senator Moore for their outstanding service as Chief Opposition Whip and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, respectively, during the last parliament.
Mr President, obviously the opposition would have preferred to have found ourselves on the other side of the chamber in the 45th Parliament; however, we return to this Senate ready to continue to hold this government to account, and we look forward to participating in robust debate and applying forensic scrutiny as we hold the executive to account.
I congratulate government senators who have been appointed to parliamentary positions and particularly congratulate those who have been appointed to the executive. It is an enormous privilege to serve as a minister of the Crown for the Commonwealth of Australia, and we congratulate you on that appointment.
I seek leave to table the shadow ministry list for the 45th Parliament and to have it incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Incorporation:20160830:shadow ministry
PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS
11
PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS
Australian Greens
11
17:07
Senator DI NATALE
53369
Victoria
by leave—I wish to inform the Senate that, subsequent to the election, I continue as leader of the Australian Greens; Senator Scott Ludlam and Senator Larissa Waters continue as co-deputy leaders; and Senator Rachel Siewert continues as whip. I seek leave to table, for the information of the Senate, a copy of the Australian Greens office holders and portfolio list. I take this opportunity to thank all of my fellow Greens colleagues for their contribution, to thank Senator Robert Simms also for his contribution most recently, and to congratulate members of both the government and the opposition on their respective positions.
Leave granted.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation
12
17:08
Senator HANSON
BK6
Queensland
by leave—I advise the Senate that I am the leader of the party and Senator Burston is the party whip.
Nick Xenophon Team
12
17:08
Senator XENOPHON
8IV
South Australia
by leave—I wish to advise the Senate that Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore will be the whip of the NXT.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
12
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Deputy President and Chair of Committees
12
17:08
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
Mr President, I remind the Senate that it should now choose one of its members to be the Deputy President and Chair of Committees.
17:09
Senator WONG
00AOU
South Australia
I propose to the Senate, for its Deputy President and Chair of Committees, Senator Lines. I move:
That Senator Lines be appointed Deputy President and Chair of Committees.
The PRESIDENT
e5v
Are there any other nominations for the position of Deputy President and Chair of Committees? There being none, I declare Senator Lines duly elected as Deputy President of the Senate and Chair of Committees. Congratulations, Senator Lines.
17:09
Senator LINES
112096
Western Australia
Thank you, Mr President. I thank the Senate for the honour that they have done me by bestowing this position and responsibility upon me. I will use my best endeavours to discharge my duties with dignity and fairness. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT
e5v
Just before we move on, could I particularly acknowledge the work and the contribution of Senator Gavin Marshall previously as Deputy President of the Senate and Chair of Committees. And I do congratulate Senator Lines, and I look forward to working with her as I did with Senator Marshall.
17:10
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
Mr President, on behalf of the government, may I congratulate Senator Lines on her election without opposition to be Deputy President and Chair of Committees of the Senate. It is a very high honour, and we wish you well in the discharge of that office, Senator Lines.
It would be remiss of me to let the opportunity pass without acknowledging, with thanks and appreciation, the role of Senator Marshall, the previous occupant of the position. Senator Marshall, you were an outstanding Deputy President of the Senate. You were respected by all government senators for your fairness, your even-handedness, your authority, your command of the standing orders and the willing spirit of cooperation which you enjoyed with the President of the Senate. There was never a breath of partisanship when you were in the chair. Senator Lines, you have big shoes to fill, which we are sure and confident that you will do.
17:11
Senator WONG
00AOU
South Australia
I rise on behalf of the opposition to congratulate Senator Lines on being elected Deputy President and Chair of Committees. Senator Lines is only the third woman to hold this office, the others being former senator Margaret Reid, who went on to become the Senate's first female President, in 1996, and former senator Sue West, who held the deputy's position from 1997 to 2002. This chamber has increased the number of women by one, to 30 senators, since the end of the 44th Parliament, and I am particularly pleased that the opposition now has a woman holding the positions of leader, whip, deputy whips and Deputy President.
Senator Lines has previously served as a Temporary Chair of Committees. She entered the Senate following the retirement of Chris Evans in 2013 and has served on a number of standing committees, most notably as Chair of the Education and Employment References Committee. We are confident, on this side of the chamber, that Senator Lines will bring her experience and her personality to the important role of Deputy President and Chair of Committees.
I also pay tribute to Senator Marshall. I thank him for his service as Deputy President since July 2014. He is someone with regard for the traditions and conventions of this chamber and was a fair and effective chair. I look forward to his future contribution to the opposition.
Temporary Chairs of Committees
13
17:12
The PRESIDENT
e5v
Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating Senators Back, Bernardi, Gallacher, Ketter, Marshall, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Reynolds, Sterle and Whish-Wilson as Temporary Chairs of Committees when the Deputy President and Chair of Committees is absent.
PRIVILEGE
13
PRIVILEGE
17:13
The PRESIDENT
e5v
As President of the Senate, my role includes watching out for the institutional rights of the Senate and senators. I therefore wish to make a statement on a question of parliamentary privilege that has important ramifications for all senators and their capacity to function in this place.
Senators may be aware that, on 19 May this year and 24 August this year, officers of the Australian Federal Police executed search warrants at the Melbourne office of Senator Conroy, at the home of an opposition staff member and on the Department of Parliamentary Services here at Parliament House, and seized certain material.
In accordance with the AFP guideline for execution of search warrants where parliamentary privilege may be involved, Senator Conroy claimed parliamentary privilege over the seized material, which was delivered into the custody of the Clerk of the Senate, where it remains today in sealed packages in the Clerk's safe. As required by the guideline, Senator Conroy notified the AFP that he was maintaining his claim of parliamentary privilege over the documents.
As the Senate had been dissolved, Senator Conroy wrote to the Clerk in respect of both occasions, asking for her to arrange to have the matter placed before the Senate when it was reconstituted. Senator Conroy also wrote to the Clerk extending his claim of parliamentary privilege over any copies of material seized from his office and the home of a staff member that had been acquired by the AFP in searching other premises.
A background paper on the determination of claims of privilege following the execution of search warrants has been prepared by the Clerk for the information of senators. The paper includes analysis of the important institutional role played by the Privileges Committee in such matters. I table copies of the correspondence from Senator Conroy, the AFP guideline and covering memorandum of understanding, and also the background paper by the Clerk.
It is now for the Senate to consider how to determine the disposition of the documents. As a first step, unless the Senate determines otherwise, I propose to facilitate discussions on a way forward, and I will confer with party leaders and other senators on a suitable time frame for those consultations to occur.
17:15
Senator CONROY
3L6
Victoria
by leave—I will have more to say other than this short statement during the course of the week, but there are several observations I would like to make at this time. What is at stake here is not simply a question of the Prime Minister's legacy as communications minister, as much as that legacy deserves close scrutiny. This is not about the cut and thrust of politics, political gamesmanship or pointscoring. What this is about is the proper functioning of the parliament and our democratic system. It is, at its core, about the constitutional right of the people of Australia, through their parliament, to hold the executive to account without fear or recrimination.
Parliamentary privilege is fundamental to the Westminster system of democracy. It is an ancient privilege stretching back to at least the reign of Richard II. In 1397 Sir Thomas Haxey presented a petition to the House of Commons which condemned the waste and mismanagement of the royal household. An incensed Richard demanded to know who had presented the petition, and Haxey was given up. The Lords declared him a traitor and condemned him to death. Although Haxey was never executed, he was deprived of his title and all his possessions. In 1399 the new king, Henry IV, annulled the judgement on the grounds that it was contrary to the privileges of the Commons, and he later promised never to pay attention to the unauthorised accounts of parliamentary proceedings again.
Henry IV's acknowledgement that the action against Haxey had been contrary to the traditional liberties of the parliament suggests that the privileged status of parliamentary proceedings was recognised as early as the late 14th century. And it is this privilege that ensures every parliamentarian, on behalf of the Australian people, can scrutinise waste and maladministration. The raids on my office, my staff member's home and the Department of Parliamentary Services are an extraordinary attack on the parliament and its constitutional duty to hold the government of the day to account. As Jonathan Holmes wrote yesterday:
It's hard to imagine a more serious attack on investigative journalism, and on the ability of the media to hold government to account.
There must be no place for politics when it comes to such fundamental democratic principles. It is up to every parliamentarian and every journalist in this place to stand up for the parliament and our democracy, and I have been heartened by the many senators and members from all sides who have approached me to express their concerns about these events.
Finally, on a personal note, I want to acknowledge the distress these events have caused for those involved and for their families, friends and colleagues. In particular, I want to acknowledge Mr Andy Byrne, who has had to endure more than any staff member should for simply doing his job. He was read his rights and was told he was a suspect. It is no exaggeration to say that Mr Byrne has been a model staff member who has worked tirelessly to ensure that the Australian people get the National Broadband Network they deserve. I am honoured to have the privilege of working with Mr Byrne. Thank you.
17:19
Senator BRANDIS
008W7
Queensland
by leave—I understand that Senator Wong has given notice that she will move tomorrow that the matters to which Senator Conroy has adverted be referred to the Senate Privileges Committee for inquiry and report. That is the appropriate course of action, and the government will be supporting that motion. It will then be for the Privileges Committee to determine the appropriate course and, in doing so, to determine its own procedure for investigating the nature of the documents, the nature of the claims and the nature of some of the assertions that are being made in relation to this matter.
The issue raises not one but two important principles. As Senator Conroy has rightly said, it raises the matter of the privilege of the Senate. It is not the privilege of individual senators; it is the privilege of the Senate, as Senator Conroy has rightly said. That is an ancient privilege recognised by section 49 of our Constitution, which provides:
The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth.
That was the law of Australia from 1901 until 1987, when this parliament passed the Parliamentary Privilege Act, which currently, as interpreted by the courts and by parliamentary practice, governs the matter. That is, as Senator Conroy has rightly said, a high and important principle integral to the functioning of this parliament. In this case it is set in tension with another high and important principle, and that is the due and proper administration of the criminal justice system by those officers charged with its administration—in this case, officers of the Australian Federal Police. It will be for the Privileges Committee to determine the facts of the case, to determine the appropriate course and to determine what steps, if any, the Senate should now take.
17:22
The PRESIDENT
e5v
In light of the information that has been presented by you, Senator Brandis, my offer to facilitate further discussion with the leadership group and other senators will now stay in abeyance. I am to understand that we will expect a motion, or a notice of motion at least, about a reference to the Privileges Committee. So, unless any other senator has any other comment, I think we will just leave it at that until we deliberate on that particular motion.
CONDOLENCES
14
CONDOLENCES
Cameron, Mr Eoin Harrap
14
17:23
The PRESIDENT
e5v
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 23 June 2016 of Eoin Harrap Cameron, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Stirling, Western Australia, from 1993 to 1998.
BUSINESS
14
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
14
17:23
Senator BUSHBY
HLL
Tasmania
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ryan from 30 August 2016 to 1 September 2016 for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
17:23
Senator URQUHART
231199
Tasmania
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Singh for the period 12 September 2016 to 1 December 2016 inclusive on account of parliamentary duties.
Question agreed to.
Days and Hours of Meeting
14
17:24
Senator FIFIELD
D2I
Victoria
by leave—I move:
That the Senate meet on Wednesday, 31 August 2016.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
15
ADJOURNMENT
Palliative Care
15
17:24
Senator POLLEY
e5x
Tasmania
I rise this evening to speak about the hospice@HOME program which the District Nurses deliver in Tasmania. Growing old is no longer something that we do behind closed doors. It is something we do in our own communities and in our own homes, making our own choices and participating in society. The same can be said for end-of-life care. Seventy per cent of Australians want to die in the comfort of their own home, but unfortunately only 14 per cent do so. More than half die in hospitals and a third die in nursing homes. This needs to change, which is exactly what the District Nurses are doing in Tasmania through their hospice@HOME program. Earlier this month I had the pleasure of meeting with Fiona Onslow from the District Nurses who is working with Kim Macgowan to deliver in-home and community based end-of-life care in Tasmania. They have been delivering tailored hospice@HOME packages since 2014 and, thanks to their great work, palliative care has become more accessible for patients and their families.
Hospice@HOME is a pilot and is only being rolled out in Tasmania, but they have seen huge improvements and advantages when it comes to end-of-life care. Not only are families and patients fully supported, but hospital beds, acute wards and emergency departments that are at their capacity are being freed up. The achievements of hospice@HOME are significant: 46 per cent of hospice@HOME clients die at home, compared to about 14 per cent of the general Australian population; 50 per cent of clients who said they wanted to die at home fulfilled their wish; patients have been able to stay at home longer than ever before; the quality of life and care has been enhanced; and, as I mentioned, unnecessary and inappropriate use of ambulance services and emergency departments has been reduced.
The District Nurses and hospice@HOME are really leading the way, and their efforts are backed by strong evidence—so much so that they have recently been invited to the 21st International Congress on Palliative Care in Montreal, Canada, in October. What a wonderful achievement for these dedicated professionals. The hospice@HOME pilot is funded by the federal government until June 2017 under the Better Access to Palliative Care program. There has been no commitment or indication from the Tasmanian state government or the federal government to continue funding past June next year, which would see an end to the hospice@HOME packages in Tasmania.
During the election campaign, Labor made a commitment to invest $35 million in palliative care, which included a $2.3 million commitment to allow Palliative Care Tasmania to continue its important work. Palliative Care Tasmania's funding ends on 30 September, and there has been no commitment whatsoever from the Liberal government for funding past next month. Discontinuation of both hospice@HOME and Palliative Care Tasmania would be detrimental to the health sector, to the community and particularly to older Tasmanians and their families.
Further to this, in my home state of Tasmania, Labor committed $3 million for the creation of a ground floor 10-bed standalone hospice for Launceston to support palliative services. Currently, there are only four public beds available in Launceston for palliative care, in comparison to Hobart, which has 10 public beds available. The community and doctors, nurses and other health stakeholders who understand the community's desire to have a hospice in Launceston have backed this proposal. For too long families have watched their mothers, their fathers and their loved ones die at the Launceston General Hospital in an acute setting. This is unacceptable. This is just not good enough, and Tasmanians—particularly northern Tasmanians—deserve so much more. It is time that we took a bipartisan approach to this and backed this hospice. We know it is in the best interests of all northern Tasmanians to have the ability to enter into a standalone hospice.
I would also like to place on record my thanks to Barb Baker, the chair of the Friends of Northern Hospice in northern Tasmania, for her tireless work. She and her committee have campaigned for over 10 years for this hospice. At the last election Labor made a commitment of $3 million so that this could become a reality. I am calling on this government to listen to what older Australians and the community are saying. They want to have better options and alternatives to what is currently available. (Time expired)
Dairy Industry, Economy, Donations to Political Parties, Aged Care
16
17:30
Senator LAMBIE
250026
Tasmania
This is my first adjournment speech in the 45th Parliament. Deputy President, I congratulate you on your appointment. It is great to see that girl power riding right along—good on you. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to the elders both past and present. I also acknowledge the great sacrifice that the men and women of our defence forces have willingly given to this country so that we can meet safely here today. I thank the people of Tasmania for their advice, trust and votes and for gifting me the great honour of representing them, once again, in this great Senate. It is a responsibility that I cherish and take very seriously. The decisions I make and the votes I take in this great chamber of debate will be governed by this one principle: I will always put Tasmania and its people first. In the short time remaining for this speech, I will briefly touch on some of the issues that urgently demand the government's attention.
Everyone in the Australian dairy industry—the big supermarkets, the big milk processors—are making huge profits and massive amounts of money. Everyone, that is, except our Australian dairy farmers, who are going broke. Australia's largest milk processor, Murray Goulburn, has just reported a 61 per cent increase in an after-tax profit totalling more than $40 million while retrospectively slashing milk prices for farmers and leaving them with huge debts. And this government thinks that a referral to the ACCC will deliver justice and a fair go to our dairy farmers and rural communities? The government knows that an ACCC referral is just a sly, clever way of covering up wrongdoings. The ACCC referral continues this government's role as apologists for big business. This shameful cover up and this injustice for our dairy farmers and their families must not be allowed to continue. The dairy crisis must be referred to a Senate committee immediately, where big business executives, under oath, will have to explain their actions to all of Australia. In the meantime, if Australia's future milk security—not to mention the jobs and prosperity of many rural and regional communities in Tasmania—is to be protected then an immediate 50c per litre milk levy, returned directly to our dairy farmers, must be supported by all members of this parliament.
We have been warned by the Treasurer that our children will know what a recession feels like and that Australia's AAA rating is in jeopardy because of a growing, unaddressed debt crisis. The government's solution is to cut spending on Australia's poor, aged, sick, veterans and unemployed—what's new? I simply ask this: why don't we just make the super rich and big business pay their fair share of tax in this country? My tax plan, which has been independently assessed, will target the top one per cent of Australia's richest and increase tax revenue by $94 billion over a decade. It will mean taxing some of the government's and opposition's biggest political donors and may stop many members of this parliament being awarded plum jobs with big business after politics. My tax plan is guaranteed to stop our children from knowing what a recession is, while keeping Australia a nation where our poor, our aged, our sick, our veterans and our unemployed receive a fair bloody go.
The news headlines read that Australian businesses with close ties to China donated $5.5 million to political parties. Finally, the truth is being uncovered about the dangerous influence people linked to the Chinese communist government have over major Australian political parties and their policies. No longer will politicians be able to hide behind shrill shouts of 'xenophobia' when we criticise Australian asset sales to Chinese state-owned companies. The Liberal, National and Labor parties must immediately disclose to the Australian people how much political funding is linked to the Chinese government or any other foreign powers.
A growing aged-care crisis must not be made worse by allowing this government to cut $1.2 billion from our national aged-care budget. Of these cuts, $40 million are proposed for Tasmania alone. If these cuts are allowed to continue it will result in the loss of 750 Tasmanian jobs in aged care, and elderly patients, who should be looked after in aged-care facilities, will be transferred to state public hospital beds. This is nothing more than a shameful cut by the federal government, cost shifting onto a Tasmanian public health system which is already under serious financial stress.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
10000
Thank you for your congratulations, Senator Lambie.
Work and Family
16
17:35
Senator JACINTA COLLINS
GB6
Victoria
Deputy President, I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your rise to this position. On a lighter and somewhat briefer note, I would like to update the Senate tonight on an announcement made 21 years ago by the then President, Michael Beahan. In question time 21 years ago he announced that my son James had been born. James has now, at 21, come of age and we are very proud of his achievements. Twenty-one years ago he was welcomed by a special motion into the Labor caucus, and 21 years ago he was the first stranger in this chamber. A lot has changed over that time.
My goal, 21 years ago—as it has been, indeed, 21 years for me too—was to demonstrate to other women that although it might be hard and difficult to manage, combining family life with political participation was possible. Yesterday was James's birthday, and I want to highlight today that James has grown to be a fine, intelligent and hardworking man of character. He is a man who, as a law student at ANU, now calls Canberra home. Happy birthday to James. I believe this is a milestone for the Senate and also demonstrates that women can combine political life with an active family life, as many men now do, too.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
10000
Thank you for your congratulations, Senator Collins.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
17
17:37
Senator SINGH
M0R
Tasmania
I rise to speak on the new attack on multicultural Australia by Senator Cory Bernardi and his renegade conservative allies, including three Tasmanian Liberal senators, led by Eric Abetz, who today have signed a motion put up by Senator Cory Bernardi to water down protections from hate speech contained within Australia's Racial Discrimination Act.
The protections against offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating hate speech have been a feature of Australian law for more than 20 years, since the Keating Labor government introduced changes in 1994. The changes were introduced as a response to a number of reports on racial violence in Australia, including the National Inquiry into Racist Violence, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Law Reform Commission's report Multiculturalism and the law. Our international treaty obligations also played a part, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The act as it stands gives people some way to deal with words and actions that attack them or their fellow citizens simply for being of a particular ethnic background. The act recognises that a community as rich and diverse as Australia's only functions properly when people act in a respectful and responsible way together and towards each other.
Our Racial Discrimination Act is not designed just to stop people from getting their feelings hurt. In fact, the courts have always set the bar for breaches of this law much higher than somebody simply being offended. The types of attacks this law defends against are those that have the potential to do serious harm to people or to undermine the harmony of our multicultural community. Racial discrimination is all too often a precursor to racially motivated violence. Even when violence is not involved, a lifetime of racial abuse without any means of redress can cause terrible trauma. Either way, these are examples that reasonable Australians understand have no place in a community based on equality. But, on the opening of this 45th Parliament, it seems the only thing Senator Bernardi and Senator Abetz can come up with, particularly Senator Abetz in representing Tasmania, is this regressive move to water down an act that is working just fine.
Instead of focusing on the needs of Tasmanians, Senator Abetz is prioritising the wishes of extreme elements in the Liberal Party. Tasmania has a vibrant multicultural community. Our society and economy are also enriched by growing international tourism, and the huge number of international students at the University of Tasmania. So I ask Senator Abetz: what is it that he wants to say, but cannot currently say, under the existing Racial Discrimination Act? And what is Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull going to do about these renegade conservatives who seem to be running the Liberal Party? Weakening racial vilification laws will leave many people already in our community, as well as those who may visit our communities, feeling more vulnerable and more fearful.
Liberal Prime Minister John Howard did not seek to change this law in his 11 years in government. So why would Malcolm Turnbull allow his renegade Liberal conservatives to do so now? Labor believes there is no good reason to change this law now—or ever, in fact. The Australian community and Labor stood up to Prime Minister Tony Abbott last time the coalition launched an attack on protections against race hate speech, and they will do so again. They will always stand up for migrants and refugee communities and stand against any attacks on our current protections from hate speech. So I call on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to rein in his renegade conservative colleagues and make sure he stands firm on the commitment that he has made in recent days—that he will not introduce changes to the Racial Discrimination Act in this country, for the sake of our vibrant multicultural communities. (Time expired)
Taxation
17
17:42
Senator SMITH
241710
Western Australia
It is a great pleasure to rise and make my first substantive contribution in the life of the 45th Parliament. And, while there will be an opportunity to do this more fully at a later time, I would at the outset like to thank the people of Western Australia for their support in returning me to this place.
Being a senator for Western Australia is something that I relish enormously, but I am always mindful of the fact that I would not be able to do it without the support of my fellow Western Australians and the support of the Western Australian Liberal Party in particular. So, on this first sitting day, I thank both for their faith in me and again pledge myself to the service of our great state and its people. Indeed, Madam Deputy President, I extend to you, a fellow Western Australian senator, my congratulations on the trust that has been extended to you here this afternoon in your elevation to the new role of Deputy President.
As I have said many times in this place, when it comes to Western Australia, there is no greater challenge and no issue more urgent than finding a resolution to the grossly unfair arrangements that currently exist for the distribution of GST revenue. I have also said before that Western Australians are not unreasonable or ungenerous people. We understand that the nation this parliament serves is a federation and we are a part of that federation. We all understand the need for Western Australia to make a contribution to the economic wellbeing of the nation as a whole. But what sticks in the craw of many of us is the sheer imbalance in the system, most particularly on the question of GST revenue, which has seen Western Australia's relativity fall from around 98c in the dollar when the GST was introduced in 2000-01 to just 30c in the dollar in 2015-16. This has been absolutely unprecedented. The worst historical comparison predates the GST, when Victoria during the Second World War saw its relativity drop to 0.68 in its Commonwealth grants.
Recall what was said by Treasurer Peter Costello when the GST was first introduced. He said that the purpose of the GST was to give access to:
… a revenue base that grows in line with the economy. It will provide a secure base to fund their services.
For a variety of reasons—many of which I have touched on previously in this chamber—this has not been the Western Australian experience, and the problem is significantly compounded by the three-year-lag issue.
When the Commonwealth Grants Commission makes its determination as to WA's GST entitlement, it is using data that reflects economic conditions from three years previously to determine today's allocation. It is plainly not realistic to expect states to meet their obligations today based on economic data that is between two and four years out of date. Western Australians understand that there needs to be some capacity for movement in the system, but greater certainty is required if states are going to meet the obligations they have to their citizens.
For those who seek to characterise this as a uniquely Western Australian complaint, I would draw their attention to some recent comments made during the federal election campaign by the New South Wales state government. The Treasurer of New South Wales has confirmed that the most recent Commonwealth Grants Commission determination of GST revenue entitlements has cut New South Wales's share by $850 million. The New South Wales Treasurer has also warned that state parliament that New South Wales's GST relativity is forecast to fall to 0.81 and said that this will have a significant impact on her state of New South Wales. I just note that Western Australians dream of relativities of that magnitude—it seems a very long way off our current 0.303 relativity for 2016-17. She also said New South Wales is a victim of its own success when it comes to GST revenue, which is something that Western Australia has been at pains to point out about itself for many, many years. Nonetheless, it is good to see other voices from other states now calling for reform of the way the Commonwealth Grants Commission makes its determinations in relation to each state's and territory's GST revenue entitlement. Reform is long overdue.
Since this parliament last met, there has been a significant development—a breakthrough, even—that many of us in Western Australia have sought for a very long time. During his address to the Liberal Party state conference in Western Australia on 13 August, the Prime Minister acknowledged 'the huge gap between what West Australians pay in GST and what they receive back' as being 'unprecedented'. 'West Australians have every right to feel aggrieved,' said Prime Minister Turnbull. Of course, we are used to hearing expressions of sympathy with Western Australia's plight, but what the Prime Minister said next was very, very significant. He confirmed that this government would move 'to change the arrangements so that we set a percentage floor below which no state's receipts can fall'. These are the words that Western Australians have been waiting to hear from a Prime Minister for many years. It is a commitment that the Premier and the state government in Western Australia have welcomed as very encouraging and as an important structural reform in the GST distribution process.
Of course, the federal coalition has long recognised the problem and, over the past two years, has made top-up payments to Western Australia totalling almost $1 billion to redress the imbalance of the GST revenue distribution arrangements. This has now been backed up by the Prime Minister's commitment to introduce a floor for GST relativities.
I think it is worth noting that, despite the significant GST revenue handicap, the WA state government has achieved remarkable things during its time in office since September 2008. More than 200,000 jobs have been created in my home state on the back of an increase to the value of business investment in Western Australia of $424 billion. Gross state product has grown by an average of five per cent per annum, which exceeds the national average. Meanwhile, the value of exports from WA has risen by some $40 billion, and there has been approval for some $30 billion in iron ore projects and for the massive $56 billion Gorgon project. These opportunities have, naturally, attracted new residents to Western Australia, both from overseas and from other parts of Australia. In fact, the population increase has been around 400,000—almost equivalent to the entire population of Tasmania.
Just think about the demands that such a drastic increase in population places on a state government, particularly in terms of the development of crucial infrastructure and of the delivery of key services in health, in education and in transport. That would be a challenge at the best of times. Just imagine what a challenge it is when you are seeing your GST relativity fall to 0.3 and millions upon millions of dollars flowing from WA to other states that are not facing challenges of such magnitude. That is why the Prime Minister's commitment is so significant, and implementing the floor will be critical to securing WA's future.
But there is a threat. It comes in the form—no surprise—of the Australian Labor Party, both at the state level, in WA, and here in Canberra.
Senator Moore
00AOQ
Oh no!
Senator SMITH
241710
Oh yes, Senator Moore. Does anybody really think that Mark McGowan, the WA Labor leader—the man who left WA with crippling teacher shortages as education minister and who was part of a government that literally could not keep the electricity on—will be able to fight for WA's interests effectively and make sure the floor is implemented?
And what of Mr McGowan's federal Labor colleagues? Following the Prime Minister's announcement, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was given numerous opportunities by journalists at media conferences to support the plan to implement a floor. He pointedly refused to do so, simply dodging the questions. We in Western Australia all know what that means. As we saw with the mining tax and with Labor's refusal to do anything to reform the GST, the federal Labor Party simply sees WA as a convenient cash cow which it can use to prop up its political position in the eastern states. It is clear that, if Western Australians want to achieve GST distribution reform and see a floor implemented, they need to think very carefully about the choice that they make at the WA state election in March next year.
Having agreed the principle of a floor, the debate must now focus on where that floor should be. But, before that point, a sensible next step would be to commission a thoroughly independent, comprehensive and economically focused inquiry into the national economic gains to be derived through imposing a floor through which GST distribution relativities cannot fall.
Palliative Care
19
17:51
Senator BILYK
HZB
Tasmania
I, too, add my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy President, on reaching that esteemed position. I am sure you will fulfil your role absolutely wonderfully.
Tonight I rise—as did my state colleague Senator Polley—to speak about palliative care and, in particular, Palliative Care Tasmania. In 2012, the then Labor government provided $2.67 million over four years for the organisation to deliver the Networking End of Life Care Across Tasmania project. This funding was due to run out on 30 June this year. However, Palliative Care Tasmania have been able to use unspent funds to extend the program until the end of September. After that date, they have no guarantee of further funding.
Palliative Care Tasmania's program covers a huge range of activities. They deliver education on end-of-life care for health, aged and community services staff and volunteers, and to the general community. They also promote discussion of death, dying and grief through innovative activities such as arts and youth based projects. As well as undertaking these activities directly, some of the funding is directed towards grants, administered by Palliative Care Tasmania, to community organisations to deliver their own activities. So far, more than 70 organisations have been recipients of grants totalling around $1 million. The program aims to increase the community's awareness and understanding of palliative care and of grief and loss. It supports community recognition that death is a natural part of life. The program has been an outstanding success. In just the past 18 months, Palliative Care Tasmania's activities have reached over 6,000 Tasmanians directly and more than 7,000 indirectly through their community grants.
So why is this so important? Much of the debate in this place focuses on how we go about improving the lives of Australians. And while we constantly talk about how to provide a good life for the people we represent, we tend to give very little attention to what our constituents need to have a good death. There is an urgent need to dramatically improve Australians' experiences of dying. This was well illustrated in a 2014 study by the Grattan Institute titled Dying well. The study found that, despite 70 per cent of Australians expressing a wish to die at home, only 14 per cent managed to do so. This is half the rate of comparable countries, such as New Zealand, the United States, Ireland and France. More than half die in hospitals and a third in nursing homes, and the rate of hospitalisation is increasing as our population ages. The Dying well study found that many Australians feel disempowered in their final days, with many experiencing 'impersonal, lingering and lonely' deaths. Does this sound like the kind of experience we want for our friends and family members in their final days? I think not.
While there are a number of contributing factors to this problem, one of the major factors is quite simply and easily addressed: have the conversation. Not enough Australians are having conversations with their family members about how they wish to be cared for when dying. And not enough Australians express their wishes in writing. A lot of this comes down to the fact that death is an uncomfortable subject, and Australia seems to have a culture that shies away from talking about it. Unfortunately, in many instances the conversation comes too late, when a palliative care patient lacks the capacity to advocate for themselves or perhaps even the ability to communicate their wishes in any meaningful way.
There are two simple steps that every Australian can take which will give them a good chance of vastly improving their end-of-life experience: (1) write out your wishes in an advance care directive; and (2) discuss your wishes with your partner, your family, or a close friend or relative. While there is an element of personal responsibility in having these conversations, there is also a role for government in educating Australians about the importance of this responsibility. For those who do consider having the conversation, many Australians will not know how to start the conversation or what topics they need to cover. This is where Palliative Care Tasmania's community education has been so effective.
It is estimated that, in Tasmania, the number of Tasmanians dying at home is now as high as 26 per cent. This is still well short of the 70 per cent Australia-wide who, according to the Grattan Institute, want to, but it is a significant improvement on the 14 per cent Australia-wide who do. The chance to die in your preferred setting can lead to a greatly improved end-of-life experience. But there are other benefits too. More Tasmanians dying at home means significant savings for our healthcare system. The difference in cost over a few months between delivering palliative care in hospital and palliative care in a home setting can amount to tens of thousands of dollars for just one patient. Investing in a program that encourages more Tasmanians to discuss death and dying, and more Tasmanians to discuss their wishes for end-of-life care, makes good sense both socially and economically.
The funding to Palliative Care Tasmania delivered by Labor was part of a broader palliative care package called the Better Access to Palliative Care program. The other components of this program included: $35.26 million to deliver at least 2,000 packages of community based palliative care through hospice@HOME, which Senator Polley mentioned; and $11 million to the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services to strengthen the capacity of palliative care services and networks to improve access to community based palliative care.
During the recent federal election, Labor committed to extending elements of the Better Access to Palliative Care program—including the funding for Palliative Care Tasmania. While our commitment was to continue the program just in Tasmania, we also said, quite clearly, we would evaluate it for a national rollout. That is how good this program is. The Turnbull government, by contrast, has yet to make any commitment to Palliative Care Tasmania beyond the end of their current funding agreement. I have started a petition in support of Palliative Care Tasmania's funding, which I will be tabling in the Senate in the next sitting week, in mid-September. There is both a written and an electronic version of the petition, and so far both combined have attracted over 700 signatures—and that is in about just two weeks.
I also wrote to the Minister for Health outlining my concerns about the future of funding for Palliative Care Tasmania. In response to my letter, the minister's office has advised that the entire Better Access to Palliative Care program is being evaluated for its appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and impact. Funding of $280,000 has been provided for the evaluation, which is being undertaken by Australian Healthcare Associates and is due for completion at the end of December. That response simply is not good enough. Even if the evaluation of the community education component is favourable, which I am sure it will be, Palliative Care Tasmania will not be able to hold out until December and they will have to close their doors. If the evaluation is favourable and Palliative Care Tasmania has already wound up, who is the Turnbull government going to give the funding to?
I doubt any other organisation will have the knowledge, skills and experience to deliver this whole program as effectively as Palliative Care Tasmania have, given they have already been delivering it for the past four years. It will be a less than ideal outcome if the government finally agree to continue this program only to find that they have to rebuild it from scratch. While I am calling on the government to fund the program for another four years, even some interim funding—say, $550,000 for the next 12 months—could help Palliative Care Tasmania to keep their doors open while the evaluation is being concluded.
At this point, I would like to acknowledge the support for my campaign offered by other members and senators. My Labor colleague the member for Franklin, Julie Collins, I know has promoted my petition, as have other state and federal Labor colleagues. Senator Lambie has also helped to promote my petition and has lent her voice to the cause. And, while he has not been as vocal, I know that Senator Abetz has been quietly advocating for Palliative Care Tasmania within government, and I do thank him for his support.
As I said earlier in this speech, Palliative Care Tasmania will not survive beyond September if the government does not agree to an extension of their funding. This is a program which has been successful in educating thousands of Tasmanians about having conversations about death and bereavement. It has improved the end-of-life care experience for many, many Tasmanians in their final days. It has been embraced and valued by Tasmanians, as the support for my petition shows. For the sake of the thousands of Tasmanians who have benefited from this program, I urge the Turnbull government to fund Palliative Care Tasmania beyond September—otherwise, they will simply have to cease to exist.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
10000
Thank you, Senator Bilyk, and thank you for your congratulations.
Indigenous Affairs
21
18:01
Senator SIEWERT
e5z
Western Australia
Madam Deputy President, I too would like to join the chorus of congratulations to you on becoming Deputy President of the chamber.
I rise tonight to talk about Aboriginal disadvantage in this country. But before beginning I would like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we are meeting and on which we stand every time this Senate meets. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land.
Earlier today, I and many of our colleagues in this place and the other place had the privilege of attending a smoking ceremony organised by the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, and it was a brilliant way to start the 45th Parliament. It is important, I think, to send a very clear signal at the beginning of the 45th Parliament that there are significant issues and unfinished business that we need to address.
Members of the congress were calling on us, as politicians, to support the Redfern Statement. This Redfern Statement came out during the election. It is a very important and comprehensive statement about the issues that urgently need to be addressed if we are to ensure that Aboriginal people are no longer incarcerated at appalling rates across this country, are not living in poverty and can access education and many other services that broader Australia takes for granted.
The Redfern Statement is an urgent call for action and should be essential reading for every Australian—but particularly for every senator and every member of the House of Representatives in looking at what action by this place is needed in order to address Aboriginal disadvantage in this country and making sure that we close the gap. The statement covers a comprehensive set of issues in terms of accessing education, employment, housing and health. It talks about reforming services and reforming the Indigenous advancement strategy and returning funding for that. Importantly, it talks about justice and access to justice and setting justice targets. It talks about properly funding and refunding Aboriginal legal services. It talks about changing the record, in terms of those appalling incarceration rates I was talking about, and implementing recommendations that have already been made—for example, those made 25 years ago in the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report. It talks about meaningful engagement. It talks about implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in domestic law in this country. And it talks about funding Aboriginal organisations and returning funding to the national congress. Meaningful engagement means actually making sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have representative bodies and that they are funded and that there is meaningful community engagement in decision-making, ensuring that we have Aboriginal owned, managed and delivered services. They are critical elements in making sure we are closing the gap in this country.
This month—in fact, just a couple of weeks ago—I had the privilege of being able to visit the Northern Territory, and I can tell you: the feeling of concern about the direction of policy in this country is palpable when you talk to people in the Northern Territory, and particularly, of course, when you talk to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Of course, it comes on the heels of the devastating reports in the Four Corners program of the way young people have been treated in the Don Dale facility in the Northern Territory. The message that I received when talking to people about that issue was really clear, and that is: we need to look not only at those issues of abuse that happened in Don Dale and, in fact, across the country, but also at what the underlying reasons for young people ending up in incarceration are. They want to look at prevention, early intervention and also the early childhood years, because they know that is imperative. One of the challenges we need to face is how we put services in place that adequately address those underlying causes of disadvantage.
While I was there I also had the great privilege of attending the 50th anniversary of the Kalkarindji walk-off. It was, as I said, a privilege to be able to attend and learn more of the history of this country. Again, I think it is imperative that this place and the other place and broader Australia properly understand those issues and properly understand the momentous occasion that that was. It was firstly about wage justice—and I am going to come back to that issue—but it was, of course, much bigger than that in terms of the issues around land rights and reconciliation in this country. It was a critical moment in our history and it was extremely important that it was celebrated.
One of the key issues I want to come back to is around this issue that I raised about wage justice. We know that Vincent Lingiari walked off with 200 other Aboriginal people because of wage injustice in this country. They were absolutely sick of, basically, having to work for rations on their own land. And we celebrate that occasion now in this country as a momentous occasion, as we should. But, if we think wage injustice in this country is over, we are mistaken. During the celebrations, we talked about current Aboriginal policy, and one of the issues that came up was the continuing injustice in this country when it comes to Aboriginal people and wages.
The government currently has a plan on the table called the Community Development Program, CDP. That is basically Work for the Dole. I have spoken in this place many times about the failures of Work for the Dole, but it gets worse on this issue. If you are living in a remote community—and predominantly of course that is Aboriginal people—you have to work 25 hours a week for Work for the Dole, when broader Australia only has to do 15 hours a week and do it in six-month lots. Aboriginal people have to do it all the time. In fact, at the time it was first proposed, there was no consideration of public holidays or holidays or breaks. That is discriminatory. It is unfair. That is not wage justice. So, 50 years on, we are still talking about wage injustice for Aboriginal people. That sort of wage injustice does not address issues around disadvantage.
I am pleased to see that the minister for Aboriginal issues announced yesterday that he is going to hold a workshop with Aboriginal leaders to talk with them about their future approach around the Redfern Statement. The government have the opportunity to reset their agenda, to work—to genuinely and meaningfully engage, as the Redfern Statement says—with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across this nation. But it is absolutely urgent that they do, and that the minister and the government actually listen, because the agenda absolutely needs to be reset. They need to commit to issues around Aboriginal justice, around justice targets, which Aboriginal people are calling for in the Redfern Statement. Reform IAS, because that has been a complete disaster, and you do not have to go very far or talk to too many people to get the sense that there is great outrage. I have spoken to many, many people about that. That issue needs to be reset.
Most importantly, they need to really and meaningfully engage people in the decision making, making sure services are owned, delivered and developed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Redfern Statement is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples setting the agenda. The government needs to listen properly to that and implement it. I support the government's approach to the workshop and hope that they use that to reset the agenda.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
10000
Thank you, Senator Siewert, and thank you for your congratulations. Senator Ludlam.
Census
22
18:11
Senator LUDLAM
I07
Western Australia
Thank you, Senator Lines. I would like to add my congratulations to you for taking on the role and responsibility of Deputy President. I am sure you will serve this chamber well.
It is a delight to follow Senator Siewert in the adjournment slot on the first day that parliament sits. I would like to thank everyone who supported me in taking my place in here over the election campaign, particularly my family, Senator Siewert and the formidable Greens team who worked so hard so that both of us could be here tonight.
While parliament was in recess, a process that most Australians would normally find largely uncontroversial blew up spectacularly in the government's face, severely damaging confidence in the Commonwealth's lead statistical agency, potentially placing at risk the privacy of millions of people and likely compromising one of the most important datasets used daily by policymakers and researchers around the country. I am talking of course about the great census fail of 2016.
In 2006, after a relatively robust and open process, the Australian Bureau of Statistics shelved a proposal to create a permanent statistical linkage key which would have substantially altered what the census is and how it could be used, from a once-every-five-years anonymous snapshot, to the creation of a lifetime digital identifier that would follow you like a unique barcode for the rest of your life. The best arguments on all sides of the debate were presented, and I acknowledge at the outset that there are arguments on all sides of this debate. The best arguments were brought to bear; specialists and researchers in the field presented their views. They were examined and summarised, and the conclusion that was reached in 2006 was that the process would amount to a substantial and unacceptable risk to people's privacy. And so it was abandoned.
Perhaps mindful of the setbacks a decade prior, in 2015 advocates inside the ABS for this method elected to conduct a rather private internal assessment of very similar proposed changes to the 2016 census. No civil society groups across this country participated in this process; no independent experts were consulted either from the pro or the anti side as far as we know. The results of this assessment and the changes to the census that were eventually announced happened with zero fanfare a week or two before Christmas 2015, after this parliament had risen for the year.
Privacy advocates and civil society groups—and ourselves, I must admit—were forced to run something of rearguard action, expressing views that should really have been incorporated into the ABS's planning from the very beginning. Former Australian Statistician Bill McLennan called it 'the most significant invasion of privacy ever perpetrated on Australians by the ABS'. These are strong words for someone who formerly ran that same agency. Many concerned groups and individuals, exasperated with the bad faith displayed by the ABS and total silence, stonewalling and dismissal by the government, began advocating a boycott.
So it was that, at that time, about March of this year, our office launched a petition to save the census, because we saw that the legitimacy of the privacy concerns—and they are entirely legitimate—had given momentum and credibility to a boycott movement, so much so that the veracity and the integrity of the census data itself was at risk. At that time the Turnbull government, I think, should have intervened. They could have held over the creation of the statistical linkage keys—this unique identifier—until such time as a transparent and thorough assessment of the proposal could be completed. That was what we asked Treasurer Scott Morrison to do, and the government failed to do that.
I understand that such linkage keys are in relatively common use amongst researchers and statisticians, and I respect the value of having longitudinal identifiers that can follow particular cohorts of people if you are working in the health sciences, disability services or as many other fields as you would like to name. But I also believe that the creation of such a unified identifier for every single Australian—not opt in, not opt out, but mandatory—should have been subject to a substantial public debate and a measured weighing of the costs and benefits. Such a debate will inevitably take place in the context of high-profile data breaches here and around the world, indiscriminate surveillance and data storage by signals intelligence agencies, and the potential misuse of such data either by authorised agencies or by unauthorised actors.
This is a conversation that needs to be had. I am not sure that this is necessarily a Left or a Right thing either. This is something the Greens have advocated strongly from, but I would have thought the libertarian wing of the Liberal Party—or actual libertarians like Senator Leyonhjelm—would have some views on something like this. I do not think there is a clean Left or Right political divide here; this is a debate that absolutely needs to be had by the light of day.
In contemptuously dismissing those concerns, the government guaranteed that the census data would, at bare minimum, be compromised, and, as we found out on census night, it was actually a lot worse than that. It is hard to imagine a more complete failure—from the ABS social media feeds encouraging people to fill out the census long after admins had pulled the site offline to the technically incoherent press conferences in the days that followed as blame was passed around and deflected from hand to hand.
Those technical failures, the spectacular planning oversights and the ministerial ineptitude have succeeded in some way, I guess, in diverting attention away from what was at best a rather arrogant and insidious abuse of process. This sort of secrecy and misdirection would fail a research ethics assessment at any Australian university. Maybe people are happy for their governments to do this on their behalf, but the conversation has to happen in daylight.
It is too late for the government to save face, but it is not too late to restore some faith in the process. At the earliest opportunity, whichever minister is responsible for the census this week should make a statement to reassure anyone who withheld their name, as I did—or their address or any other identifying information—that the ABS will not be seeking to pursue fines or other punitive action against them. The minister can direct the ABS to continue their efforts to collect census forms—I think that happens normally; that happens every census night—but stop them from hectoring and frightening people who are either unable or unwilling to complete the census, thanks in part to the catastrophic mismanagement of the whole process.
Our phone lines have been running hot, and I am presuming that this is not just because we took a high-profile position. I suspect other MPs' offices will be taking these calls as well from people anxious to know whether or not they will be punished as a result of this debacle. Obviously, they should not be. That is something that the minister, whoever he happens to be, could fix tonight. The thousands of people and organisations that rely on census data to make policy and proposals—and that obviously includes us and probably everybody in this chamber; we declare an interest here—will need better than that. Nothing less than a full inquiry into the lead-up and conduct of the census fail will suffice. We need to find out what was lost. How accurate is the information that we have, and how possibly could it have come to this? How badly skewed is the data that was collected? Do we need to cut our losses and start again with a better process? Should the census be held again and the one that was conducted a couple of weeks back simply be scratched?
Every Australian should be given the opportunity to make an informed choice. We will be joining moves this week to conduct a thorough Senate inquiry into the census fail, and I hope that we have cross-party support to bring fresh proposals to the table to clean up the mess. That means we would get to hear from the researchers who use this information in their daily work. We would get to hear direct from the ABS about cuts to their budget from this government and the corners that they may have had to cut to put the census into the field. We could hear from the technical community, who can step us through what on earth went wrong on census night. We could hear from digital rights organisations like the Privacy Foundation, Digital Rights Watch and Electronic Frontiers Australia and from specialist researchers like Rosie Williams and Asher Wolf, who have led the debate online.
Census fail was clearly avoidable, but the best thing that can come out of this debacle is a measured and thoughtful debate on data sovereignty, the role of the census in setting policy, the place of big data in our society and what happens when governments try to cut corners on census night.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
10000
Thank you, Senator Ludlam, for your congratulations.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
24
18:20
Senator LEYONHJELM
111206
New South Wales
There is a caricature for opponents of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. They are supposed to be racists who are itching to offend Muslims, Asians and Aborigines. I support the repeal of section 18C, so I have been conscripted into this caricature. The thing is: I opposed conscription in the 1970s, and I oppose conscription now. So that voters do not fall for the caricature, let me be clear: the Liberal Democrats have no objections to Muslim Australians.
I voted against every one of the draconian national security bills which gave government and law enforcement bodies increased power to harass Australians, including Muslims, without due process or scrutiny. I oppose Australia's counterproductive military involvement in the Middle East and central Asia, which has been ratcheted up without parliamentary scrutiny. I oppose restricting immigration on the basis of religion. We must properly screen individuals, not groups, based on their character, criminality and commitment to liberal democratic values—indeed, there is a strong case for making citizenship conditional on these qualities. I believe food companies should be free to purchase halal certification, as long as it is in a free market and not funded by taxpayers. And I believe Muslim women should be free to wear clothes that cover their face if they wish, although I strongly prefer see the faces of my fellow Australians because it is important for building mutual empathy. But we also all have a right to criticise such women for their obvious refusal to integrate and assimilate, but it is not a matter for the law.
To those who want to hurl insults at Muslims, let me be clear: I am not one of you; I do not share your views. That said, I believe you should be free to hurl your insults, but only so that others can then deliver withering rebuttals for all to hear and to learn from. I believe you should be free to hurl your insults so that others do not need to reconsider what they say when they want to make more considered contributions to debates on Islam. And I believe you should be free to hurl your insults because then there would be no need for the speech police, and abolishing this office would then mean we could all get a tax cut.
As I have said before, there is a caricature of opponents of section 18C. They are supposed to be racists just itching to offend Asians. The Liberal Democrats do not fit this lazy caricature. We welcome Asians and their impact on Australia. I voted for the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and I will vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. I welcome expanded skilled migration from our region. I welcome investment from China and Hong Kong in Australian agriculture, real estate and infrastructure. And I welcome cheap Chinese steel imports. Each of these serves to boost the incomes of Australian businesses and workers.
Every party other than the Liberal Democrats has opposed trade, skilled migration or investment from China through their recent actions in this place. So, when you are looking to cast someone as anti-Asian, do not take the lazy approach of singling out opponents of 18C. Look to those who supported the screening of modest foreign investment in agriculture, including the coalition and Family First. Look to Senator Lambie and One Nation. But also look to those strident defenders of 18C who just cannot stop dog whistling about the yellow peril: Labor, the Greens and Senator Xenophon.
Some people claim that my opposition to section 18C proves that I do not value Aborigines. They assert that Aborigines need 18C because they are particularly vulnerable to insults. They go on to say this assertion cannot be refuted by white people, because white people do not know the Aboriginal experience. The funny thing is this blanket assertion about the vulnerability of Aborigines is often made by white people, and plenty of Aborigines have told me that it is condescending and counterproductive codswallop. In fact, the assertion that Aborigines are particularly vulnerable to insults is insulting to many Aborigines. So the excuse for 18C is itself unlawful under section 18C. How absurd!
I have argued against claims that Aboriginal advancement will come from continued race based handouts, continued encouragement for Aborigines to remain in dysfunctional remote communities and continued symbolic gestures. We have generations of evidence proving that this is a prescription for continued disadvantage. So, whenever we hear such groupthink, I suggest we make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, because it is hard to imagine an approach that could be more insulting to Aboriginal Australia.
Marriage
25
18:26
Senator RICE
155410
Victoria
Madam Deputy President, I also want to add my congratulations to your appointment. I think it is a wonderful thing to have another woman there as Deputy President.
When I first spoke in this place, I stood here and declared: 'The time for marriage equality in Australia has come.' Now, today, it is two years and three days later and marriage equality has the support of the Prime Minister, the opposition leader, a majority of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and an overwhelming majority of Australians. Yet here we are with a backward coalition backbench holding back a government that is holding back the nation.
We are falling behind the rest of the world. There are 22 other countries, including the US, the UK, Ireland, South Africa and—perhaps the one that is closest to us and hurts the most—New Zealand, who recognise the right of all loving couples to marry, no matter where they fit according to their sexuality or on the gender spectrum.
In the last few weeks, my home state of Victoria has announced changes that mean it is going to be possible for my partner, Penny, and me to stay married with Penny changing her birth certificate; we are not going to be forced to divorce. Penny and I have had 30 years of wonderful marriage, and we ask: why are couples in the same situation in other states not afforded the same right? Trans forced divorce is simply ridiculous.
Why are thousands of other couples in loving LGBTIQ relationships refused the right to show their love in marriage? We are told that we have to have a plebiscite. The excuse that the government has is a harebrained scheme to delay the inevitable that is a leftover from Tony Abbott and his band of merry troglodytes. There have been surveys of lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersex and transgender people done in recent weeks that have shown that 85 per cent do not want this plebiscite, and we know that polls are consistently showing that seven out of 10 Australians support marriage equality.
In the past 99 years we have had one plebiscite, and the way it has impacted on my life is that earlier today, instead of singing God Save the Queen or Waltzing Matilda, I sang Advance Australia Fair. But the way marriage equality is going to impact on lives is that loving couples will be able to show their love before friends, families and the law. There has been no other issue of human rights in the last 99 years that has been considered or decided by a plebiscite. There have been so many human rights decisions that have been made—whether it is ending discrimination against women or ending discrimination against racial minorities. And, in particular, John Howard, when he was Prime Minister in 2004, did not need a plebiscite to change the Marriage Act to say that marriage had to be between a man and a woman. We do not need a plebiscite to change it back.
Of all the moral decisions that this parliament has made in the past 99 years, the government wants a very expensive opinion poll that will intrude on the everyday lives of every lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer person in this country. My partner, Penny, and I know how such intrusion plays out, including having photographers staking out our house. But we know that this is what can happen when you put yourself forward for public office. The hounding, the trolls and the attack ads of a plebiscite would seep into everyday life.
This plebiscite could cost lives. That is not an exaggeration. Just take the pamphlets being handed out at the MCG a couple of weeks ago suggesting that a child with gay or lesbian parents has been deprived. For every parent, imagine going along to the footy to see such a hate-filled pamphlet and having to explain to your children why some people think that you have been deprived of something. And then imagine that sort of hate being broadcast with a megaphone through every form of media—traditional and social—on posters and on billboards, and being talked about over the dinner table, at work and at school. Imagine you are a same-sex attracted young person feeling isolated, alone and unsupported, perhaps feeling guilty and perhaps, if you are a religious person, that you are a sinner, feeling that you are unworthy and that you are a lesser person, and having to experience that hate speech. Imagine that you are at a school where you have not got the support of the Safe Schools Coalition—in a school that does not believe that there are any same-sex attracted students in their mix and certainly does not support them. Imagine putting up with that hate speech. It is no exaggeration to say that a plebiscite will mean that some people will feel that the best way forward is to take their life.
So after everything that we have heard, I honestly cannot say that we could support this plebiscite. In my first speech I said that I am here for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people and their families. I cannot honestly say that I would have fulfilled this if we did not oppose the coalition's plebiscite. I think of the young man Harry who wrote to me a year ago—a young gay man who, fortunately, has had the support of a very loving family and a lot of supportive people around him. He is too young to be thinking of marriage, but he shared with me the stories of three couples that he knew, including his uncle and his partner, who he desperately wanted to be able to be married so that they were equal to the rest of his uncles and aunts. Another family, who are raising three young children, had to enter into very complex legal arrangements to be able to get the same rights as heterosexual couples. Harry described them as the most amazing family and no different to any other. It means so much to Harry that the tide has turned and we now have a majority of Australians and a majority of Australian parliamentarians who are allies of the LGBTI community and are supporting the rights of people who love each other to get married. Harry, his friends, the people that he knows, should not have to be put through the harm and the hate speech that would come with a plebiscite.
Another person who wrote to me a year ago was Jenny, who has been in a relationship with Maria for over 10 years. They have an eight-year-old son. They spend their life doing the things that families with eight-year-old sons do: picking them up from after-school activities. Their eight-year-old son asks why Jenny and Maria cannot get married and says how much he would like it if they did. The time for marriage equality has come now. We need our parliament to get on with the job and to have a free vote in the parliament so that people like Jenny and Maria can get married. Maria is Spanish. In Spain, marriage equality has been allowed since 2005. It seems completely arbitrary that they can get married in Spain but not in Jenny's home here. They did not need a plebiscite in Spain, just like we do not need one here in Australia. In deeply Catholic Spain in 2005 there was strong opposition from the church, but now, 11 years later, 85 per cent of the Spanish community support marriage equality.
There are plenty of bills that we are going to be discussing in this parliament over the coming months and years, and I want a marriage equality bill to be one of those that is brought on quickly, to have a free vote in this parliament so that we can vote on it and get it done. I really hope that we can, despite everything that the haters are throwing at us. We now have more publicly lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex parliamentarians than at any time in our history. To Senator Wong, Senator Smith and the member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman, welcome back. Welcome to the member for Brisbane, Trevor Evans; the member for Bruce, Julian Hill; and the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson. And a special welcome to Senator Pratt, who left this place as I entered but is now back. Together, with my colleagues in the Greens and the Parliamentary Friendship Group for LGBTIQ Australians, I believe that we can work together to help end discrimination of LGBTIQ people and their families.
Election of Senators
26
18:36
Senator RHIANNON
CPR
New South Wales
Today, the first day of the new parliament, it is timely to remember Labor's confected hysteria about Senate voting reforms. Remember the night of the Senate sleepover: Labor heavyweights told us that the Senate would be purged, that the poor would suffer, that democracy would be trashed and that crossbenchers would become a threatened species in this chamber. And the cruelty of it all would not stop with the make-up of the Senate. Labor senators told us that voters themselves would suffer.
By now, this speech should be accompanied by a drum roll to highlight the drama and fear that Senator Conroy and co whipped up. For the record, Senator Conroy's merry band of backers was not that big. Only 10 Labor senators out of a total of 26 spoke on the Senate voting reform legislation.
Labor senators told us in the debate, and they told us time and time again through that long night, that 3.4 million voters would be disenfranchised—locked out of representation in the Senate, no less. Senator Wong gave an agitated speech, saying that voting reform that would give the voter complete control of their own vote was not in the national interest and that she feared the very functioning of Australia's democracy was at risk. Senator Wong dreaded that a true representation of voters' intentions would result in no less than 'the reshaping of our party system' and that it would turn the Senate into 'as closed a shop as the Liberals and Greens can make it'. She opined that trusting the voters with their own vote would result in a purging, no less—these are Senator Wong's words—of minor parties and Independents. And she added that it would be 'for all time'. She was fearful that a more representative vote would 'reduce the opportunity for Independents and minor parties to win positions in the Senate' and that 'more coalition senators' would be elected.
Senator Dastyari bemoaned that voters would choose a Senate with only 'perhaps very occasionally another senator representing a minor party' as 'the most likely outcome'. Senator Cameron joined Senator Conroy's merry band. He was wringing his hands, claiming that the Senate voting reforms would, in his words, entrench the existing parties, and especially the Greens and the coalition, 'at the expense of the crossbenchers, making life worse for the poor in this country'. 'Life worse for the poor'—they were his words. Of all the Labor silliness over Senate voting reform, you would have to say that that takes the cake. Senator Cameron went on to angst that Senate voting reform would bring about—and these are his words—a decline in political competition by raising the barriers to entry by other, newly emerging parties. In an irony of ironies, Senator Cameron made the ludicrous claim that optional preferential voting in the Senate would make life a lot easier for lobbyists—conveniently forgetting the power and the influence lobbyists currently have.
Senator Conroy took Labor's wailing and gnashing of teeth to a new level, saying that the Greens' work to ensure that voters keep control of where their own vote ends up was the perpetrating of 'an atrocity'. Those were Senator Conroy's words. It was an 'absolute travesty of democracy', he added. 'Atrocity', 'travesty'—Senator Conroy certainly knows how to lay it on with a trowel. Senator Collins called the reforms a 'filthy deal'—again, her words—'to prevent new players from entering the Senate'. She said, 'The principal beneficiary of this new voting system will be the Liberal Party.'
So what did the voters choose to do with their votes? They elected a Senate that represents the will of the Australian electorate. There was no great 'purging' of minor parties from the crossbench as forecast by Labor senators. The question now is: why did a handful of Labor senators turn on the JSCEM recommendation for Senate voting reform, which they had supported for over one year, in such an extreme attacking discourse? This debate was used by a section of Labor to launch one of their most dishonest attacks on the Greens, in this case by trying to make out that we were backing the coalition. We were in fact voting for our policy of allowing voters to determine their preferences and of ending group voting tickets. This has long been Greens policy. We achieved it in New South Wales in 1999 and we have raised it time and time again in this place. Labor's tactics now look shrill and silly. Their 'night of the long knives' looks very much like a blunt instrument. This is how psephologist Dr Bonham summed up the Senate voting reform:
… the new system has generally exceeded the expectations of its most ardent supporters … and made its opponents' pre-election arguments look very silly indeed.
He went on to say that every one of the raised objections proved false by a large margin.
The new Senate has its largest crossbench in history, with 20 senators, up from 18 in the previous parliament, and a swathe of new small parties representing what people voted for. The coalition lost three senators, down from 33 to 30, and Labor gained an extra senator, up from 25 to 26. This includes the popular and high-profile Senator Lisa Singh, whose demotion to last on the Senate ticket by her own Labor Party was roundly ignored by Tasmanian voters. This is where we see an interesting spin-off of the reforms, because those Tasmanian voters used to great effect the new system of voting below the line that no longer requires all boxes to be numbered—and it is a very big welcome back to the Senate to Senator Singh.
So 3.4 million voters were not disenfranchised or 'locked out of representation' with no part of their vote represented in the Senate, as, on that long night, Labor senators asserted would happen. The Senate's sizeable crossbench puts the lie to that claim. Dr Bonham has noted that the effective exhaustion rate was just 5.1 per cent. Compare this to Senator Wong's extreme claim of an exhaustion rate of between 14 and 20 per cent. The informality rate in the Senate, of 3.94 per cent, was only slightly higher than at the last election, and the make-up of this Senate per state is more closely proportional to the share of votes each party received from voters in that state. Isn't that what democracy is all about?
So there is another question for Labor: are you still peddling the same rhetoric about the evils of Senate voting reform or do you accept the wiser adjustment of those who backed the reforms, including most Labor MPs in the House of Representatives? Right now, Labor's performance at the 'Senate sleepover' looks more like their own 'nightmare on Capital Hill'. Senate voting reform has been a huge success. There were no backroom preference deals. In this election, voters determined their own preferences, as it should be.
Siedlecky, Dr Stefania, AM
27
18:44
Senator MOORE
00AOQ
Queensland
I am a bit disappointed that Senator Rhiannon did not mention my contribution in that debate about the Senate changes of electoral rules about the importance of the education of the voting public. But I am sure she will get around to that in a future contribution.
This evening I want to talk about a true legend in women's health and in our community—Dr Stefania Siedlecky. In June this year Stefania Siedlecky died in Sydney. Among the outpouring of respect and love for this remarkable woman, the board of the management committee of the Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre passed the following motion:
The Board of Management and staff of Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre acknowledges the sad passing of Dr Stefania Siedlecky AM, a founder of Australia's women's health movement and trailblazer. Stefania has had a significant and lasting impact on thousands of women's lives and Australia's health system and academia through her intelligence, passion and commitment to medicine and women's health which spans more than fifty years. In 1974 Stefania was the first doctor at Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre, occupying an interesting and uncomfortable space between the old guard medical establishment and a push for a new kind of primary health care model, now internationally regarded as best practice. Over the years Stefania did not waiver in her commitment and compassion for women's equality and women's right to access quality health care without discrimination or impediment.
Stefania was an excellent doctor, a pioneer, mentor and friend to many. The Board of Management and staff give their condolences to Stefania's family.
Stefania was born in 1921 in Blackheath. Blackheath at that time was not a friendly place for people who came from overseas—for migrants. In fact, foreigners were not particularly welcome in the Anglocentric world. Stefania and her sister Josephine were called the 'bold Russian brats' because they were energetic, attractive and intelligent. Their father was very assertive in expounding his atheist and socialist views to anyone, whether they were interested or not.
Stefania and Josephine each became the dux of their school, and both studied medicine at Sydney, where there were not too many medical students at that time. Stefania's first preference was to study teaching, but she was rejected due to her bad eyesight. She then took on a scholarship and graduated very highly in her class. She was one of the first female residents at St Vincent's Hospital, where she was paid at that time 70 per cent of the male rate. Still, her father commented with pride that 'a slip of a girl' could be paid so well, such was his pride in her achievement. She also worked at Rachel Forster Hospital in Redfern, a women's hospital run by women. She moved to Darwin after the war and then came back and practiced medicine in Blackheath again, and continued to have a high-profile medical career in that part of Sydney.
Due in large part to her experiences during World War II, Stefania developed a lifelong interest in women's health. She recalled later that:
… working in a women's hospital during the war years I saw women die from infection and haemorrhage following illegal abortion, and the hypocrisy of doctors who would do a discreet safe abortion for their private patients.
One doctor went so far as to say: 'I am here to teach you how to deliver babies, not how to prevent them.'
Such experiences had a profound impact on her future career and values. Throughout her career Stefania was a strong advocate for women to have adequate information about, and access to, contraception at a time when it was unfashionable to do so. In 1971 she joined Family Planning New South Wales, which became a lifelong passion. It was there she worked at a clinic as a training doctor. She worked as an enthusiastic volunteer in school and community education programs, and talked on sex, contraception, pain relief in childbirth, and menopause to various women's groups. In 1974 Stefania helped to establish the Leichhardt women's health centre and the Preterm Foundation—two schemes which helped to bring safe, legal abortion into the open in New South Wales.
In 1974 she was appointed as a consultant in family planning in the Commonwealth Department of Health, initially for six months but eventually for 12 years. At the time, that appointment raised some hackles with some former Sydney medical colleagues, who questioned the choice of such a dangerous radical for such an important job. Indeed, that job needed such a dangerous radical. In 1976 she became adviser—and later senior adviser—in family planning and women's health. Among her many successes in the Department of Health were the first National Women's Health Conference in 1975, the establishment of the Action Centre for young people in Melbourne in 1976 with Family Planning Victoria and the later establishment of Warehouse and the Fairfield Multicultural Centre in Sydney with Family Planning New South Wales. She worked and, in fact, survived through successive governments, pleased that she had been able to maintain a real interest in women's health. During these years she oversaw the allocation of funding for research projects and for special units in each state for doctor education in family planning. Through this process she was able to bring an 'open mind, sensitivity to cultural factors and a real empathy for other people's experiences'. These, actually, are the basis for truly effective development of policy in any area, but most particularly in the area of health.
In 1978 Stefania obtained a Master of Science in medical demography from the University of London. Her master's thesis, Sex and contraception before marriage, was published in 1979. In 1979-80 she worked for two months with the United Nations, developing preparatory papers for the UN mid-decade conference for women held in Copenhagen in 1980. She was a member of the Australian delegation to that mid-decade conference and then continued to represent us at the International Conference on Population in Mexico in 1984 and the UN end-of-decade conference for women in Nairobi in 1985. She helped prepare Australia’s position papers on women’s health and family planning issues. She fondly recalls working with other women at the Mexico conference to have the 'Role and Status of Women' given separate consideration instead of being included under the title 'Reproduction and the Family'.
Stefania retired from the public sector in 1986 and was invited to join the UNFPA Special Advisory Committee on Women, Population and Development from 1987 to 1993. She became a member of the board of the Family Planning Association of the ACT and later in New South Wales from 1987 to 2000, including a two-year term as president. Over this time, Stefania established and chaired the Family Planning NSW Ethics Committee and, from 1989 to 1995, represented Family Planning Australia on the East and South East Asia and Oceania Region Council, helping to set up its women’s subcommittee, focusing always on ensuring that women's voices were heard and that women's voices talked about the importance of women's health. She was also on the board of the Preterm Foundation and chair of its Ethics Committee from 1987 to 2004.
In 1989, Stefania was appointed Honorary Associate in Demography at Macquarie University, where she became involved in epidemiological research and teaching. In 1990, she co-authored and published a seminal book, Populate and Perish—Australian Women’s Fight for Birth Control. She has published numerous papers, both locally and internationally, on the use of contraception, teenage pregnancy, abortion and female genital mutilation—some of the first work done in this country on these issues—working closely with women from international countries and again making sure that women's voices with the lived experience were part of the ongoing discussion and the development of policy.
Stefania was a member of so many women's organisations who loved and cherished her, including the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and also Women in Black—strong groups that worked to ensure that the messages of peace and the role of women as victims of war were also maintained in the open debate. She believed that women needed to be involved and that they could take their knowledge, their experience and their academic knowledge into development of policy and building the knowledge links across the world. In 1987 Stefania was made a Member of the Order of Australia 'for public service particularly in the field of women's health'. In 2005 she was awarded an Edna Ryan Award, which is a celebration of women who make a difference as feminists in the modern world.
Stefania was an inspiration to so many people and so many women of my generation. Her work continued despite the fact that she retired from the active workforce. She was always there to advise, to encourage and to work with women of all ages. We are very fortunate that we have a number of her radio interviews, which are through the ABC network, where in her own voice we hear her talking about the experiences in her life that inspired her to work in the areas of women's health. In a Radio National broadcast that she did with other women to acknowledge the 80th anniversary of Family Planning NSW, she was asked about what originally got her thinking about the need to work with women, particularly around the issue of family planning and ownership of your own body. She described watching her mother back in the 1920s and 1930s—as a young woman, she noticed that her mother was actually using Condy's Crystal solution as a douche to ensure that she would not fall pregnant again—and went on to talk about the incredible danger of that form of practice. That made a young Stefania think about what she would do as a practitioner and as an advocate for the issues around women's rights.
I cannot begin to express how much I admired this woman and how much I continue to admire her even though she is no longer with us. Her inspiration will and must continue. I would like to end with her own words, as I think they sum up much of her passion and her energy in this field. She said that it is really important that we continue to work into the future because, 'in spite of our successes, we need to remain vigilant to make sure we don't lose what it took us so long to gain.' We will always miss Stefania, but we will always continue to be inspired by her.
I wish to add my messages of condolences to the messages of so many other people to her very large family: four children, five stepchildren, many grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. These children have a wonderful legend that they can remember: a strong woman, a strong feminist, a strong doctor and someone whose inspiration will continue.
Opening of Parliament
29
18:57
The PRESIDENT
e5v
Before I declare that we will adjourn, could I just place on the record today my deep thanks to all of the staff involved with the opening ceremony of parliament. It has been a tremendous effort by many people. I particularly want to acknowledge the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the Clerks Assistant and John and his team—and I particularly make mention of the Usher of the Black Rod, Rachel Callinan. It has been a great effort today and it as gone very smoothly. So I thank all those people who work behind the scenes. It is a very difficult job. There have been many days and weeks of preparation, and the day went smoothly.
Senate adjourned at 1 9 : 00
DOCUMENTS
30
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
30
Tabling
51
Tabling
52