The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Commission to Administer the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I table the original commission to administer to senators the oath or affirmation of allegiance, given to me by the Governor-General.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Committees have lodged proposals to meet as follows:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to meet today.
Select Committee into Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates to meet on 27 November 2017.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to meet on 27 November 2017.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): Before I call Senator Smith, I remind senators of the procedural order under which this bill is being considered. We have two hours and 20 minutes of debate this morning, and the bill will be called on again this afternoon from not later than 4.30 pm. There will not be a vote on the bill today. The vote on the bill's second reading and consideration of amendments will occur in the next sitting week.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (09:32): The votes of the Australian people were tallied, and the Australian people have voted yes to changing the Marriage Act of our country. I know many people questioned the original plebiscite. I did. I know many opposed the postal survey. I did. Many gay and lesbian people felt uncomfortable asking for equal rights before the law because why should you supplicate for the same rights and responsibility as others? Nevertheless, we must acknowledge with awe and gratitude the willingness of our country men and women to stand beside us, to affirm us and to join us in voting yes. On behalf of gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and intersex Australians and their families, I say, with humility and with gratitude, thank you.
Yesterday we saw a glimpse of the country we all yearn for, a country that is fair minded, generous and accepting. We saw a country that was willing to embrace its hopes rather than hold onto its fears. Many of us across this chamber have seen something of that great Australian story that compelled us into public life. For the Liberals and conservatives who yearned for change, we see in this result the shining city on a hill with more freedom, more acceptance and more grace. For those opposite, they have lived out Ben Chifley's magnificent call to fight for the right so that truth and justice will prevail.
In many cases, Australians voted for someone they knew, and in just as many they voted for someone they didn't. The wonder of this result is that it brings together young and old, gay and straight, conservative and progressive, immigrant and Indigenous, in the most unifying Australian coalition. True, some wanted a 15-year debate to be over so that we could move on to other pressing issues, but mostly there was an understanding by our fellow citizens that the life path for a young gay or lesbian teenager or young adult is harder than their heterosexual brothers' and sisters'. Australians voted to make that path easier. It wasn't just a vote of acceptance; it was that deep, loving embrace of a big family.
Every time we stand in this chamber, we do so as representatives of the people. In amending the Marriage Act, we do so knowing that we have the full confidence of the Australian people. The senators from Tasmania know that 63.6 per cent of Tasmanians voted yes. The senators from Queensland know that 60.7 per cent of Queenslanders voted yes. The senators from this fine Capital Territory know that 74 per cent of Canberrans voted yes. The senators from New South Wales know that 57.8 per cent of Australia's most populous state voted yes. The senators from Victoria know that 64.9 per cent of Victorian residents voted yes. The senators from the rugged Top End know that 60.6 per cent of Territorians voted yes. The senators from SA know that 62.5 per cent of electors voted yes, and my 11 brothers and sisters, senators from that great state of WA, know that our home state delivered a resounding 63.7 per cent yes vote. If ever there was a vote that took us back to being the states' house, I think this is it. We should also note that 133 electoral divisions out of 150 delivered a yes vote. In WA it was a clean sweep: 16 seats out of 16 seats voted yes.
This was not just a vote about a law but a vote about who we are as a people. I have listened to hundreds, if not thousands of LGBTI Australians in past years. Many have written, emailed, Facebooked, tweeted, spoken to me in airports and at functions or simply picked up the phone. There is a commonality in all these conversations and in all of our lives: it is that of rejection and acceptance, isolation and inclusion—but, acutely, of shame and pride. It is the silent chord that runs through all of our lives, but acutely through the lives of LGBTI Australians. All too often the biggest hurdle for so many is that of self-acceptance and finding that path where we can honestly reconcile who we are with the hopes and dreams we have for our own lives and what we think are the expectations of others.
I've been fortunate: I have an accepting, embracing and loving family. The heartbeat of their love for me didn't skip a beat. Not everyone is that fortunate. My own journey of acceptance has been greatly influenced by a book I read as a younger man. The book was Coming Out Conservative by Marvin Liebman. It helped answer that question we all face: what must I do to live an honest and authentic life? It's a book that has sustained me through good times and through bad. Liebman writes: 'If I have learnt anything about life, it is to be yourself. Be what you are, no matter who you are or how you were born. Don't try to be what others want you to be. Accept the difference of others, include them in your lives. By shutting others out merely because they are different, you diminish your own life and that of your children.'
The decision of the Australian people to allow same-sex couples to marry is an offered hand to those deep chords within gay and lesbian Australians' lives. Nothing speaks more of acceptance than marriage. Marriage is also the way that we admit adult members to our loving families. As Paul Ritchie wrote in that beautiful book Faith, Love and Australia: the Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marriage: 'Marriage can be a powerful affirmation of our lives. A wedding is the day we see our parents' joyful tears and receive their blessing. It is when we hear our best friend's speech, with love hidden in the humour, and it is when the love of our life is admitted to our family and we to theirs. It is the day we are blessed by our families.' Because of this bill, that blessing will no longer be denied to our LGBTI children.
One of the reasons this bill is so vital is that it reflects the deepest of liberal and conservative ideals: liberal because it advances the sum of freedoms and conservative because it nurtures our families, affirms a vital institution and strengthens the social fabric which is the sum of all of our human relationships. Today I think of John Gorton, the only Prime Minister to come from the Senate, who 44 years ago moved a motion calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. In him we saw a liberalism that was empathetic and a man who even after achieving the highest office was still willing to walk a mile in another man's shoes. Gorton's mantle was taken up by hundreds of Liberal and National Party members who lent their names to the Libs and Nats for Yes campaign. To all I say: thank you.
Jack Kennedy once said with more than a touch of irony:
Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.
When I look at this victory and the thousands who made it possible, I keep thinking of one man: the one who carried the torch well before there were any LGBTI members of the coalition. That man is the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch. Like John Gorton, he is a wonderful mix of gruffness and empathy that makes him the most unexpected but compelling of warriors. This bill is more Warren's than anyone's. We simply walk in the tracks that he's laid for us.
The Australian people have voted to change the Marriage Act. Now we must move decisively on their behalf. The postal survey was a vote on amending the Marriage Act, full stop. Yes, there are other worthy debates about freedom of expression and living out our shared values and, yes, I'll be a willing and enthusiastic participant in those debates. But those matters cannot be part of the Marriage Act. They can live for another day. This bill, in keeping with the express will of the Australian people, is solely about amending the Marriage Act. I believe this is a comprehensive bill and I'm willing to engage in the substantive issues the bill addresses.
This bill seeks to remove existing discrimination from the Marriage Act and protect religious institutions and does not reintroduce commercial discrimination. Let me be clear: amendments that seek to address other issues or seek to deny gay and lesbian Australians the full rights, responsibilities and privileges that they already have will be strenuously opposed. Australians did not vote for equality before the law so that equality before the law that has already been gained could be stripped away.
This is a fair bill. This bill recognises the special place of marriage that transcends our civic and religious life. In many ways the undercurrent debate over recent years has been the question: is marriage a holy secular institution or a wholly secular institution? My message is that it can still be both without curtailing our civic or religious freedoms.
This bill advances the civic rights of all Australians and provides protection for religious institutions to continue to be guided by their own tenets of their own faith. Nothing in this bill takes away an existing right, nor does any of it diminish an existing civil freedom. The change proposed in this bill is not revolutionary; it is evolutionary. Yesterday's decisive outcome after a 15-year debate is a reflection of Edmund Burke's admonition:
Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will achieve more than our force.
Whether we admit it or not, we all bring our full selves to this place. All of us are a product of our families, our histories, our connections and the parties and communities from which we come. It is the strength and wonder of being a representative body.
I've spoken this morning very much as a gay Australian, but let me also say a few words as someone who is also a Christian Australian. It is as much a part of who I am as my nationality or indeed my sexuality, and it is in part why I wrestled with this issue for so long. Being true to self is often as much about being true to the people who loved us and nurtured us, and that equally applies to me. My faith is not a platform; it's a refuge. It's why on my desk there stands a crucifix. It gives me strength when there appear to be difficult times ahead of me. So I want to acknowledge the very genuine concerns some Christians and religious people around Australia have expressed during this postal survey and give a voice to them. People voted no not because they had a particular problem with gay and lesbian Australians but because they felt it was the easiest expression of their fear about the change in Australian culture towards people of religious faith. The no advocates spoke much about religious freedom but couldn't point to exactly what freedom was being lost. That's because what religious people fear has little to do with laws but everything to do with culture.
Let me express the fears that many people of faith have in our modern world. Many Australians voted no because they fear a world where they won't be able to live their identity, where they can't fully express who they are. They fear a world where they will be shamed for who they are. They fear a world where their faith will be questioned by internet mobs and government tribunals. They fear a world where they mightn't be promoted at work if people knew what they believed or how they lived. They fear a world of ostracism for who they are and what god they follow. They fear a world where violence might be directed against them by a mad few for no reason other than the faith they profess, the place in which they choose to worship. I understand these fears because they are reflections of the fears LGBTI citizens have felt through our country's history: fears about acceptance, fears about jobs, fears about hiding a part of you and, yes, fears about violence. This vote is not about replacing one persecuted minority with another or giving one hope to one group while inflicting fear on another group; it must be about advancing the hopes and dreams of all citizens, no matter their sexuality, ethnicity or religion.
As Australians we have a shared inheritance. Sir Robert Menzies, using the beautiful words of Saint Paul, said that, as Australians, we are members of one family—and indeed we are. The error of our times is that all too often in this chamber we seek to advance the base that elected us rather than the nation that needs us; we play to one group rather than to advance all. Yes, this is a great day for our democracy and our country, but it is also a day when we reaffirm our commitment to affirm the different identities of all our citizens and pledge ourselves to protect them all.
As a young man I never believed I could serve as a senior adviser to a Prime Minister or a Premier, because I was a gay man; John Howard and Richard Court both proved me wrong. I never believed that I could be preselected to be a Liberal Party candidate or senator; the Liberal Party proved me wrong. I didn't believe my name would ever be accepted by the people at an election; the people of Western Australia proved me wrong. And I never believed the day would come when my relationship would be judged by my country to be as meaningful and valued as any other; the Australian people have proven me wrong. To those who want and believe in change and to those who seek to frustrate it, I simply say: don't underestimate Australia, don't underestimate the Australian people, don't underestimate our country's sense of fairness, its sense of decency and its willingness to be a country for all of us. Not only does our country live these values; it votes for them as well. Thank you.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:52): I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Today is a proud day for Australia: a day of joy and a day of grace; a day for all Australians to be proud of themselves and of our nation, a nation that has shown itself to be as generous and as big-hearted as we had hoped; a day when the nation's parliament has an opportunity to reaffirm the Australian values of fairness and equality; a day when the nation's parliament can do what we have been asked to do, because this is exactly what Australians want. Australians have voted overwhelmingly in favour of changing the law to remove discrimination in our Marriage Act. Every state and every territory voted yes. The yes vote was higher than any national two-party-preferred vote in the nation's history. And it is the most conclusive national vote in the nation's history. Australians have made their views clear, and they want everyone to be treated equally before the law. The Australian people have done their part, and now it is our turn, as parliamentarians, to do ours.
For too long, some Australians have been deprived of the fair go. We've been deprived of equality before the law for no reason other than who we are and who we love. For LGBTIQ Australians, the message conveyed by the discrimination in our nation's marriage laws has been clear. It is a message that we are lesser. It is a message that we are less valued as citizens. It is a message that our relationships and our children matter less. And it is a message that, because of who we love, our love is worth less.
For others, those who fear difference, the message conveyed by the exclusion in our nation's marriage laws has also been clear. It is a message that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexuality; a message for some that they are right to fear us and to hate us; that it is acceptable to target and abuse us; that it is acceptable to marginalise us.
The impact of this abuse and discrimination on LGBTIQ Australians is not abstract. It is real and it is part of our daily lives. And its impact can be very harmful. The rate of suicide for our community is higher than for the general population. LGBTIQ Australians are at higher risk for a range of mental diagnoses and are significantly more likely to have depression or anxiety. When the LGBTIQ community is diminished in this way, the entire Australian community is diminished. Indeed, when any in our community are diminished in this way, be they our First Australians, people of different ethnicities, people of different religions or people of different sexualities, the whole Australian community is diminished—because we are one people, because we stand together to uphold the principle of a fair go, because the rule of law applies to all of us equally.
Our laws reflect the values of our nation and shape the behaviour of our people. My formative experience of prejudice and discrimination was not on the basis of sexuality but because of my race. Moving to Australia from Malaysia as an eight-year-old, I felt out of place. At primary school, I was the only Asian face and I was often made to feel different and excluded. Neighbours rejected me for my difference for no reason other than the colour of my skin, the colour of my hair, the shape of my eyes. It was this experience growing up in a predominantly white Australia that taught me the impact of fear and of prejudice, and it is from this experience that I am driven to remove discrimination and embed equality.
In 2004, the Howard government moved to amend the Marriage Act explicitly to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. It was a deliberate political tactic, and, in speaking to my Labor colleagues then, I argued that, were the restriction of rights proposed on the basis of race or age or class or religious belief or gender or any other attribute, there would not be a person in the caucus who would countenance it. But the sad fact is we have long been familiar with discrimination against some loving couples. Laws once prevented loving couples from being able to marry on the basis of race. In June this year, we saw the 50th anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia. In his judgement, Justice Warren said that the law deprived the Lovings of liberty of the freedom to marry, which 'has long been recognised as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness'. The decision saw the end to anti-miscegenation laws which had for centuries sought to prevent people of different races from mixing. And it wasn't just in America that such laws applied. They applied in South Africa and they applied in Australia, where the rights of Indigenous people to marry were restricted. My mother, the third daughter of a farmer from the Adelaide Hills, married a Chinese man at a time when the White Australia policy was still in place. My parents, just like the Lovings, point to a history of those who have not accepted prejudice and have not accepted discrimination.
Almost four decades after the anti-miscegenation laws were declared invalid by the US Supreme Court, the Australian parliament was legislating to discriminate against loving couples, not on the basis of race but on the basis of sexuality. It was a dark moment in the history of this parliament. For me, Labor's support for the Howard government's amendment meant I voted for discrimination against myself and the people whom I loved. I had a choice at that time. I could go out in a blaze of publicity, take a public stand against my party and become an outsider in a pretty dramatic way. I decided to fight this discrimination from within the political system and I chose to stay and accept the solidarity to which I had signed up as a member of a collective political party. I was convinced that Labor, as the party of equality, would one day be a driving force for reversing the discrimination that the parliament had legislated.
The Labor Party is the party of equality. We once understood inequality through the lens of economic inequality and we fought to achieve equality by securing decent wages and conditions. Over time, we came to realise the importance of driving wider equality in the workplace and in the community, and that Australians should be protected from discrimination, regardless of gender, race, physical abilities, religion, gender and sexual identity. Labor has a proud history of removing discrimination and extending equality. It was Labor governments that finally abolished the White Australia policy and that legislated against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, age and disability. It was Labor that removed discrimination against same-sex couples in more than 80 areas of law. Just as the Australian community has been on a journey, so, too, has my party; and, like the Australian community, Labor's journey has been driven by activists, by people who know discrimination, by members of the LGBTIQ community, by our friends in the Indigenous community, by immigrant communities, by people with disabilities and by others who know what discrimination feels like—and we have all worked together to change hearts and minds.
In 2011, we achieved a change in the Labor Party platform to support legislating for marriage equality. But the change didn't just appear out of nowhere. Change happened because of champions like Penny Sharpe, who has worked to build momentum for change in our party. Change happened because of representatives like Anthony Albanese, one of our most committed and fearless allies, who was willing to fight for the rights of our community before it was an accepted principle; Tanya Plibersek, who has fought tirelessly for equality; and so many others. Change happened because of Rainbow Labor activists who campaigned within the party, moving motions at sub-branches, lobbying members and representatives, and working at state and national conferences to advance the rights of LGBTIQ Australians.
Equality never comes easy. It must be fought for, and it must be won. It was true of women fighting for suffrage; it was true of workers fighting for decent wages; it was and remains true of women fighting for wage equality, as it was for married women fighting for the right to remain in paid employment; it is true of Australia's first peoples, who have fought to be truly recognised as citizens of our nation; and it has been true for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians fighting for equality before the law. I take this moment to acknowledge all the brave champions who have gone before, some who are with us and some no longer. We thank you for your courage and for your persistence.
For decades, we have been fighting for equality in our workplaces and in our communities, and we have come a long way. We have worked to remove discrimination and to extend protections against discrimination, and our fight has been a long one. It was over 40 years ago that my state of South Australia became the first state to decriminalise homosexuality, and it took another two decades for Tasmania to become the last. But, above all, we have worked to change hearts and minds. In 2004, when the Howard government moved to explicitly exclude LGBTIQ Australians from the institution of marriage, just 38 per cent of Australians supported marriage equality, with 44 per cent against. By 2007, 57 per cent were in favour of marriage equality, and support increased to 60 per cent in 2009. The Australian community has shifted. In 2004, many considered it untenable to support marriage equality. Now it is untenable to oppose it. For a decade the majority of Australians have supported marriage equality, and for a decade the parliament has lagged the Australian community, and the community is, frankly, over the negativity and the delay.
Labor opposed the Turnbull government's proposed plebiscite on marriage equality because we believed it was unnecessary, costly and divisive. Recall that it was a proposal first discussed in the marathon meeting of the coalition party room, dreamt up by the very people who oppose equality and designed to further delay progress towards equality, and in November last year the Senate rejected the plebiscite. It was after another government party room meeting in August that the idea of a postal survey emerged, and we opposed that too. We opposed it for the same reasons we opposed the proposed plebiscite, in addition to the fact that the survey risked disenfranchising whole sections of the Australian community.
But we knew—we realised—that, if the postal survey was to proceed, we had to fight it and we had to win it. So Labor, under the leadership of Bill Shorten, committed wholeheartedly to campaign for yes. We knew that ignoring this process or boycotting it would only play into the hands of those who oppose equality. So I thank Bill, Tanya, Mark Dreyfus, Terri Butler, Tony Burke, the LGBTIQ caucus members—Senator Pratt and Julian Hill—and the whole Labor team for their commitment to a yes vote.
For those of us fighting for our own equality, this has been a deeply personal debate, as I demonstrated quite publicly yesterday. Our very identity has been the subject of public scrutiny and public debate. Through this campaign, we have seen the best of our country and also the worst. Our fears of the kind of hate and misinformation a public vote on equality would lead to have been shown to be well placed. Our community has been forced to endure public pronouncements about why our relationships and our families are lesser, and assaults on and self-harm by LGBTIQ Australians have increased.
But we've also seen an outpouring of support for our community. Neil took a home-made yes sign around the shearing sheds of the Liverpool Plains because he said gay people had suffered for too long. There was that wonderful video of 104-year-old Alex telling us he voted yes because, after being happily married for 45 years, he thought his grandson Paul should have the same rights and privileges. Ben voted yes for his mums, reminding us that children in LGBTIQ families are here and they love as they are loved.
The outcome of the postal survey is a reflection of the decency of the Australian people and the commitment of all who value fairness and equality, but the victory hasn't come easily. It is because so many of us campaigned and were supported by our friends, our families, our colleagues and our neighbours—allies all, and we thank you. We have all been lifted by the support from unions, from business leaders, from farmers, miners and professionals, from working men and women, from the national sporting clubs and their leading stars to the local clubs in towns and cities across Australia. We've been lifted by support from the local cafes with 'vote yes' signs in the windows—my daughter always tried to count them: 'How many yes signs do we see today?'—the yes signs in airlines and airports decorated with rainbows.
The Equality Campaign led our collective effort. I want to acknowledge the wonderful Tim Gartrell, also the executive director, Tiernan Brady, and co-chairs Anna Brown, Tom Snow, Janine Middleton and Alex Greenwich. The commitment to fighting a positive campaign in the face of all we saw from the other side is a demonstration of the kind of Australia our nation is and that we want it to be.
This bill is the best path to legislate marriage equality. I acknowledge Senator Smith for his work in bringing this bill to the parliament. He has shown tremendous integrity and personal courage, and the broad support from across the chamber for this bill demonstrates this. This bill is the 23rd marriage equality bill to be introduced into the Australian parliament, but it is the first that I have co-sponsored. I chose to put my name in support of this bill because I believe this is the bill that can pass the parliament. It is a bill based on the consensus report of a cross-party Senate select committee, a committee which undertook extensive consultations with groups supportive of and opposed to marriage equality, and its recommendations sought to balance these interests. I again reiterate: Australians voted to remove discrimination, not to extend it. This bill strikes a balance between achieving marriage equality and protecting the rights of religious institutions whose doctrines and teachings do not enable them to support marriage equality, all of this consistent with Australia's hard-won and well-established antidiscrimination laws.
This is a proud day for Australia. It's a day when this parliament has an opportunity to reaffirm those Australian values of fairness and equality, a day when this parliament can recommit to the ideal of Australia as the land of the fair go. Australians voted yes for equality, and this is a profoundly important statement to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians that we are accepted for who we are, that we too belong, that our love is equal and our families are equal. Australians have recognised that our lives are no different to others. We have the same hopes and aspirations, and our desire to make a public and lasting commitment to the person we love is as important and meaningful as everyone else's.
This bill isn't just important for LGBTIQ Australians; it's important for all Australians. Imagine if the message of discrimination, fear and intolerance that we saw during this campaign had won. Imagine what that would have said about the kind of nation we had become. But our nation chose a different path—a path of hope, a path of acceptance, a path of respect—and for that I thank you all. The Australian community has repudiated the nay-sayers, just as it has reaffirmed the principle of equality that underpins the rule of law in our nation. The yes vote is a statement about the kind of nation we are: a nation in which fairness and equality—those values—grow ever stronger, a nation in which acceptance and respect mean that all members of our community feel safe and welcome.
This is the most personal of debates, because it is about the people who matter most to us. It is about the people we love. So I say to Sophie: thank you for you love and commitment and for all you do. And I say to our beautiful daughters, Alexandra and Hannah: I work for and fight for the world I want for you.
Australians have voted for equality. They have done their part; now it's time for us to do ours. It's time for us to get on with it. It's time for us to remove discrimination from our Marriage Act. It's time to legislate for marriage equality.
Senator RICE ( Victoria ) ( 10:1 1 ): 'Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high, there's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby. Somewhere, over the rainbow, skies are blue, and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.' These lyrics are so fitting for the debate we're having right now. For so long lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people have only been able to dream of marriage and equality under the law. Marriage has been out of reach. Marriage has been denied. Equality has not been granted in our country's laws. I am almost overwhelmed that this dream is on the cusp of becoming a reality, because Australians voted yes. I thank them so much for doing so. To my family and me, and to so many LGBTIQ Australians, it means that our dreams will soon come true. It means that our love, our relationships and our families will be equal under the law. It means that LGBTIQ people will feel safer to hold the hand of their partner when they walk down the street. It means that LGBTIQ couples will be able to get married and to celebrate their love in front of family and friends. And it means that young LGBTIQ people will feel safer to come out, knowing that their community said yes and that who they are and who they love is respected by law.
This process of achieving marriage equality has not been easy or fast. There have been many, many LGBTIQ campaigners and their allies whose commitment and determination has led us to this point over decades. I pay tribute to the community's leaders, campaigners, families and friends who paved the way, especially when it was far more dangerous and difficult to do so. I thank especially the campaigners who have campaigned so hard over the last years, the last months and in particular the last two months. I thank the magnificent campaigners of Australian Marriage Equality Alex Greenwich, Tom Snow, Anna Brown, Tiernan Brady, Lee Carnie, Francis Voon, who is not here today, and all the rest of the amazing team. I thank Rodney Croome and Shelley Argent, from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. I thank Felicity Marlowe, Ivan Hinton-Teoh, Corey Irlam and so many other campaigners whose work has led to the magnificent result that we got yesterday. But there are so many campaigners who aren't with us now, who have passed on prior to today, who have missed out on the joy of hearing Australians resoundingly say yes to our lives and our loves. We achieve this reform with them in mind and with their memories in our hearts.
And I want to thank those who came before me in this place and who stood for equality, especially when it was not so widely supported. I'm proud to be in a party that has unequivocally stood with LGBTIQ people to say yes to equality over the entire history of our party. Thank you, Bob Brown, Michael Organ, Kerry Nettle, Christine Milne, Robert Simms and all of our Greens forebears in this place. Our party room today continues on your work, proudly, and we build on your work—especially Sarah, who stewarded this portfolio for the Greens for many years.
It's been a long road to be here. It's been frustrating, to say the least, over the last few years to have a Prime Minister who didn't have the courage to stand up to those who want to continue to discriminate. We didn't need to have this postal survey. Parliament could have done its job way before now.
The last two months have been hard for LGBTIQ people. They have been so hard. Our identities, our relationships and our lives have been dissected and analysed and talked about. We've been told that we're not normal; our relationships are not normal; our families are not normal. For my wife, Penny, and me, people's blatant transphobia was on full display, with people challenging Penny's trans identity and with offensive attacks on our marriage and our love.
But we didn't need a yes vote to know that we are worthy of equality. Our community is one of the strongest that there is. We're more resilient than you know. We stand here on the shoulders of our LGBTIQ elders, in power and in love. We have endured.
And now Australians have said yes. They agree with us. They have demonstrated that they think everyone should be treated equally under the law, and that includes being able to marry the person that they love. We must fix the wrongs of the past and the present with this legislation. While LGBTIQ people will carry scars of discrimination, we can look forward to a brighter future with our country coming together to celebrate LGBTIQ people, our relationships and our families.
So I am really looking forward to just getting on with it. It is time for parliament to do its job. The bill before the chamber today, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, is the result of a long and deliberative process, one that I've been proud to be a part of. It began with the establishment of a Senate select committee at the end of 2016, inquiring into the exposure draft of the government's proposed marriage bill. In that inquiry, we took the government's draft bill on marriage equality, which it released with its original plebiscite legislation, as a starting point. We considered issues and ideas raised by faith groups, LGBTIQ peak bodies and community voices, civil liberties groups, legal experts, human rights organisations, marriage celebrants, doctors, scientists, local councils, state and territory governments and many Australian residents as individuals.
Senators from across the parliament considered many issues, including the definition of marriage, exemptions for ministers of religion, exemptions for marriage celebrants, exemptions for religious bodies and organisations, international jurisprudence on the introduction of same-sex marriage, goods and services, and the protection of the right to freedom of conscience and religion. There are a number of these areas where my views and those of the Greens do not align with those of my colleagues across the Senate, but we came to the table and we hashed it out. And the final report from that inquiry outlined a path forward which considered the issues falling out of a change to the Marriage Act and which responded to the considerations put by the full range of organisations that we heard from. These findings are reflected in this bill.
If passed, this bill will remove discrimination in marriage and allow all LGBTIQ people to marry the person they love. It would change the definition of marriage from being between a man and a woman to being between two people, and this would finally give not only gay and lesbian Australians but bisexual, trans and gender diverse Australians, intersex Australians—all Australians on the rainbow spectrum—the right to claim their fundamental right to that institution.
I do want to focus on the concerns from the LGBTIQ community that we have heard from the time of the Senate inquiry through until now, that they want to see marriage legislation that does not add new discriminations to our existing law. Our current law gives exemptions to religious organisations, and there is deep concern about expanding these exemptions to individuals on the basis of their personal religious beliefs. We've heard concerns about attempts to expand the scope of what the existing religious exemptions allow religious organisations to do. The Greens are acting in good faith in this debate. We want to see a bill passed by this parliament that reflects both the principles of equality and freedom from discrimination and the ability of people to act in accordance with the tenets, doctrines and beliefs of their religion. We are considering some amendments that we believe will improve the bill in this regard.
It's important, though, to make clear that this bill has already built in concessions from the Greens. This is not the bill that we would have introduced if it were up to us alone, but through the Senate committee process and through working with my colleagues across the chamber it has become apparent that this is the bill that can win the support of the parliament and finally enshrine equal marriage into law. It appears that in the committee stage debate in the week after next we will see many amendments moved by those seeking to expand the right to discriminate. I want to be clear: this is not what the Australian people voted on. This is not in keeping with the principles of equality and not what is being recommended by the legal community.
We already have a set of exemptions in Australian discrimination law that religious organisations can access if they choose not to wed a same-sex or gender-diverse couple, if they choose not to provide the use of their goods and services or if they choose not to be part of any practice or action that they believe disagrees with their doctrines, tenets or beliefs. The Greens actually think that these laws go too far, but this is not the appropriate place for anyone to add to or unwind these laws. We believe that any changes to those laws should be part of a comprehensive review of the scope and functioning of our national antidiscrimination laws and do not have to occur as part of amending our marriage laws.
The Greens support the call of the UN Human Rights Committee for Australia to replace its patchwork antidiscrimination laws with a human rights act that would provide a legal framework for protecting human rights that balances these competing rights. But that is not for this week, and achieving marriage equality does not have to wait for this reform. It's way past time for waiting.
I said a few weeks ago in this chamber that the government has been playing games with the lives, loves and relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, and we have had enough. The game is over. I say to the conservative members of this chamber, and indeed, in the House of Representatives: you demanded this plebiscite, and Australia voted. Respect that vote. Respect that result. Australians voted to remove discrimination, not to entrench it. Australians voted for love. They voted yes, so these right-wing crusaders must accept the result.
Because this is all about love. Everyone deserves to be able to celebrate their relationship, their love, in front of their family and friends—to feel cherished and that they belong. Everyone deserves to be able to have their relationship recognised by society in the eyes of the law. I want to share some love stories with you, stories of LGBTIQ people for whom marriage equality is deeply personal and powerful.
I'm going to mix up the LGBTIQ acronym and celebrate the BITQ first, because they have been forgotten too often in this debate. I will start with both the T and the B: Penny's and my story, a story I've shared many times over the last three years. As it seems the whole country knows by now, Penny and I have been married for 31 years. We have two wonderful sons. For the first half of our marriage, we fitted the stereotype—a perfect couple with a perfect family—but, 17 years after we first married, Penny transitioned, affirming her identity as a woman, and I still loved her. I affirmed my sexuality as bisexual. We went from being the perfect family in the eyes of others to being weird, and we started being discriminated against. Where we used to hold hands or kiss in public, we self-censored.
You don't know the pain of having to let go of your partner's hand because you're not sure of the reaction you might get from people around you. Will it be a disgusted look? Will it be some abuse yelled at you from a car driving past? Will it be a violent attack? This is the reality for so many LGBTIQ people. This was the reality for us. But we know that our relationship hasn't changed. Our love is still the same as it was 31 years go, and our two sons have become wonderful, well-adjusted young men. They are living proof that the hatred and attacks on same-sex couples and the wellbeing of our children are groundless. They are based in nothing but hatred. We are looking forward to our laws changing so that Penny will be able to affirm her gender on her birth certificate without our being forced to divorce. It's going to take a change in state laws too, so, Victoria, you are on notice! I know that our story is replicated so many times across the country.
Let's move on to the I: intersex—people whose sex characteristics don't fit the typical binary notions of male or female bodies. It's profoundly important to them that this legislation allows any two people to marry, that it not just be same-sex marriage but any two adults. My friend Tony Briffa wasn't able to marry in Australia. Tony was raised as a girl, then lived for a time as a man, and now chooses to live as both female and male. Tony and his wife, Manja, had to travel to New Zealand to marry in 2013. It's way past time that we caught up with New Zealand for people like Tony.
There is the Q: the queer, the questioning, the non-straight, the gender fluid, the gender diverse. I'll quote the reaction of the amazing, inspirational StarLady to the yes vote yesterday:
YESSSS! When the postal survey was first announced I tried to remember how I'd survived past homo/bi/transphobic era's. In the 90's when the streets weren't safe I first became a queer superhero, Starpower, I wanted to change the world. I thought today of all occasions I'd head back to my roots and celebrate my own queer history. I've moved beyond Supergirl and Wonder Woman now but they helped me along the way. Happy YES day!!!!
Let's move on to the L: lesbian couples. I know so many friends, so many gorgeous loving couples, some of whom will be lining up to get married as soon as they can, and some who won't, who just want to know that they can, that their relationships finally will be accepted as equal. My friend Suzanne shared some reflections yesterday too:
I have hated the whole idea of this stupid [swearword] plebiscite, and I regard marriage as a patriarchal institution in general, and yet still today the remarkable voting results have hit my whole body in the strangest way, like crying but something way more. I guess it's the accumulation of decades and indeed a lifetime of never really being affirmed as a lesbian.
Finally there is G: gay. Earlier this year I spoke about a gay couple, Peter and Bon, who had been together for 50 years. I even delivered a letter to the Prime Minister on their behalf, calling on him to allow a free vote in parliament that would let them to celebrate their remarkable 50 years together. They didn't have much time. Bon was diagnosed with aggressive cancer two years ago. They couldn't wait. Unfortunately, they were denied this most basic right. Bon died on 19 May, and it saddens me so much. This is such a tragedy and so unnecessary. There are many, many couples like Peter and Bon, where the ability for legal recognition was denied, and now it's too late. The huge win yesterday and the bill we're debating now will, no doubt, be a bittersweet moment for Peter. Peter, I'm sorry it came too late for you and Bon, but this is for you and Bon.
It's so simple. This is about love. I say to people who voted no: I invite you to get to know us—get to know LGBTI people. I invite you to open your minds and your hearts to us. Nobody is going to be forced to marry someone they don't want to. No religious institution will be forced to marry an LGBTIQ couple. It's not about changing any of your rights or your relationships. It's about adding more love and more equality to our social fabric.
The word 'yes' has now been transformed into the definition of acceptance and love. The meaning of 'yes' is one that differs from person to person but, through this campaign, has blossomed into a universal sign of hope. And this is truly how we are going to move forward. It's time that we get this done. It's time for politicians to do our job. It's time to let those dreams of millions of Australians come true. Somewhere, over the rainbow, skies are blue, and the dreams that you dared to dream—they really do come true.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (10:32): We don't often enough acknowledge, in this place, in our country, that we live in extraordinarily fortunate times. We are fortunate to live in 2017 in Australia. We enjoy, as a people, overwhelmingly, standards of living that those who went before us could never have dreamt of. We enjoy life expectancies that those who went before us could never have dreamt of. We enjoy freedoms and tolerances that those who went before us would never have dreamt of. These are things that we ought to celebrate. We ought to spend more time dwelling a little on the positives that we have in our lives today—and, particularly, perhaps, in this place, we ought to spend more time doing so.
I—like, I think, everybody here—live a most fortunate life. Perhaps the most fortunate gift of all was to have been born in Australia, in these most fortunate of times—to have been born in an era in which, despite the conflict that exists, we face none of the real threats that prior generations have faced, in terms of their lives and their being dragged to war. I've been fortunate in terms of my upbringing. Not all of it was without its bumps: the divorce of my parents when I was two; the death of my father when I was 12—all bumps in the road of life. But I was fortunate to have still had a very supportive, loving family, who helped me to achieve and to do the things that I dreamt of doing. I am fortunate to have had and to be enjoying a career that I love. The opportunity to be here is of course one of the greatest gifts that any of the handful of individuals who've served in our parliament can ever have received.
But the greatest fortune, no doubt, in my life today is my wife, Courtney. My wife—who is, of course, my life partner, the mother of our two gorgeous little girls, two girls almost the same age as Penny and Sophie's two little girls, and a mother who works so hard in her career—is my greatest advocate and, equally, my greatest interrogator, in her challenging of me. It is nearly nine years since we wed, and I still have extraordinarily vivid memories of our wedding day. We welcomed our family—with family members, like all families, who don't always get along with each other as much as you might wish. We welcomed them together with our friends and our colleagues, Senator Payne being one of them on that occasion. We welcomed them all with a glass of champagne to a winery in the Adelaide Hills where, indeed, we celebrated all afternoon and well into the night. We affirmed our love and our commitment to each other. We did so in front of those friends and family. It meant much to us. It still means much to us. It, of course, was one of the most seminal moments in my life. We have been blessed in the following nearly nine years to have welcomed two beautiful children, to have enjoyed further twists and turns of life but to have been able to do so together, and to know that when we hit the bumps along the way we could turn to one another for support and for stability.
Over the years, as I have spoken out in favour of marriage equality, many have asked: 'Why, Simon? It doesn't affect you. You're a heterosexual man in a happy marriage going about living your life. Why have you done so?' The answers are fairly simple: to provide the same opportunity for all Australians to enjoy the love and commitment to one another that Courtney and I enjoy. Everyone should be able to share their life, to share in the mutual vow of marriage, to share their commitment to the person they love. They are simple propositions—simple propositions that I am pleased this parliament is now moving to provide to one another. I equally do so for good policy reasons: not just the policy of equality, which is spoken of much in this debate, but the policy of stability. I was taken many years ago by an editorial in The Economist magazine—hardly a source of fluffy love and literature, but a hard-nosed policy-thinking journal. That editorial said:
Marriage remains an economic bulwark. Single people … are economically vulnerable, and much more likely to fall into the arms of the welfare state. Furthermore, they call sooner upon public support when they need care—and, indeed, are likelier to fall ill (married people, the numbers show, are not only happier but considerably healthier). Not least important, marriage is a great social stabiliser …
Homosexuals need emotional and economic stability no less than heterosexuals—and society surely benefits when they have it.
… … …
For society, the real choice is between homosexual marriage and homosexual alienation. No social interest is served by choosing the latter.
That editorial was written in 1996 in The Economist magazine. It has been a very, very long journey to get to this change.
We have already heard in this chamber of the 2004 legislative change to the Marriage Act. It was a bipartisan change, but I join those opposite in reflecting that it was wrong. It was the wrong thing to do at the time. It was wrong then, and it is even—if I can say inelegantly so—more wrong today. It has been quite a path to right that wrong: a long and winding path for this parliament, for the parties within this parliament and for this country. Senator Wong spoke of the path within the Labor Party. We ought to remember that, yes, the 2004 change was bipartisan and that a decade ago the policy position of both parties was not to vary that change. Senator Wong and others in the Labor Party worked to change the position within their party. They had fights to do so, and they had to make sure that, ultimately, they prevailed.
On this side, too, many have worked to ensure change in our position, and it has been a long process. I was reminded last night of the 12 November 2010 media story in which I first spoke publicly about my views that marriage equality was something that should be delivered in Australia and that the Liberal Party ought to have a conscience vote—a free vote—in delivering it. I said at the time that there was a certain inevitability to it occurring. Labor at that stage were still debating whether they should have a conscience vote. Indeed, in the same article the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was quoted as saying he was not yet sure whether he supported a conscience vote. We know that the parliament did indeed have a subsequent vote and that many Labor members who voted against marriage equality then will vote for it now—just as many Liberals who then were bound to vote against marriage equality, if they were to accord to our party policy position, will now vote for it.
I've been proud, ever since that moment in 2010, to argue for change to our party policy, and to do so both internally and publicly. I've been proud to do so in a way that has delivered us to this final position albeit not in the way I would have liked us to get there. There have been many allies along the journey. Senator Smith spoke about the longstanding commitment of the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, to equality and his championing of equal rights back in the era of the Howard government—indeed, his delivery within Commonwealth law of equality of recognition and support in legal treatment.
The outstanding element there, the one that had been left behind, was of course marriage. Warren, like me, kept up that fight. There have been many conversions along the journey to join us. Indeed, Senator Smith himself was a conversion early in 2015. That was a turning point in the debate within the Liberal Party, for we had a champion who wasn't just somebody like me, arguing from a position of believing it was right, but somebody for whom it directly impacted on their life. In the arguments that Dean put, it meant that anybody who looked Dean in the eye and argued against him was arguing that he did not deserve the right of marriage equality. It was no longer an esoteric or theoretical policy argument; it was a real and live one.
Subsequently, Dean was joined in his championing by the member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman; the member for Brisbane, Trevor Evans; and the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson. All of them, of course, further agitating and pushing to see change, and all of them showing, particularly in this parliament, enormous courage in their commitment to make that change happen. But they were not alone, and I and the member for Leichhardt were not alone in that battle. I acknowledge in particular Kelly O'Dwyer for her work and for her advocacy over pretty much the same period of time that I was frequently agitating—as I marched into the offices of different prime ministers and said, 'Change needs to occur,' Kelly would be by my side. We didn't always win those arguments—that's obvious for all to see—but we did manage to shift the position over time. I also acknowledge the staunch work of the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, to deliver the equality that Mr Entsch had championed, and, internally, his work to shift our position—along with Senator Payne, Mr Frydenberg and, of course, our current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.
None of us preferred the postal survey that was undertaken. But the postal survey has proven to be a means to an end. And I like to think it was a much more positive means to an end than perhaps many had expected it to be. I hope that despite the misgivings that so many Australians had, and particularly gay and lesbian Australians, the actual result of the postal survey will for them be a real affirmation of their rights, of their place in Australia and of the fact that Australia views them equally and that they are no more and no less than any of the rest of us. Of course, it is that equality that they have fought so hard for, that they deserve and that, happily, the overwhelming majority of Australians gave their seal of approval to.
Despite the misgivings of many, one of the consequences of that postal survey will be that when this legislation passes this parliament before Christmas—for it will pass this parliament before Christmas—it will do so not by a narrow margin in this parliament but by a comprehensive margin in this parliament. It will do so not in a way where Australians contest the validity of it because only one or two votes got it there but where Australians accept and embrace the result, for it has not just the legal legitimacy of passage through the parliament but the seal of approval of the Australian people. That, I trust, will make it a much more positive change than perhaps otherwise would have been the case.
I want to touch on those who voted no, the reasons they voted no and the fears that caused them to vote no. There will be many, many reasons that those Australians who chose to vote no did so but, obviously, profound amongst those reasons are matters of religious rights and freedoms. As Senator Smith rightly identified, the bill before us takes away no rights. People will still be free to worship as they choose and to hold the beliefs that they hold dear in their religious practice. Their churches, their synagogues, their mosques and their ministers of religion will still be free to practise their faith in accordance with their faith and their doctrines. There is no direct threat posed to any religious practices as a result of this legislation. It will not undermine the rights or freedoms of any Australians; it will simply extend the right of marriage to those of all genders and all sexualities. To those who have concerns, I urge you to take the time to understand that your liberties will not be compromised. When this bill passes, my marriage to Courtney will be the same then as it is today. When this bill passes, no other relationship will be compromised; it is only that those of gay and lesbian Australians will be enhanced. When this bill passes, we will have taken a great step on the path to equality.
There will, of course, be further debates in this chamber about particular amendments, and I will reserve my right until I see the nature of those amendments. But I will not be supporting any amendments that extend inequality or discrimination when we as a government are opposed to such discrimination. I will not be supporting any amendments that extend discrimination when the Australian people have spoken so comprehensively in their voice that we ought to end discrimination by providing for marriage equality. I want us to make sure that the bill we pass through this parliament achieves the simple aim of giving to loving Australians the equality that they deserve, regardless of their sexuality; the simple aim of ensuring it does so in a manner consistent with all of us who already enjoy the right to marriage; and the simple aim of ensuring that it doesn't undermine anybody's religious freedoms but nor does it compromise other freedoms to protect anybody's religious freedoms. This should be able to be achieved quite simply. I believe it is achieved by the bill that is before us, and I pay tribute to those who have worked so hard on this bill to get it to this point.
As a parliament, we will be much better for having dealt with this issue. Many Australians will breathe an enormous sigh of relief when it's all done and dusted. Many are, frankly, fed up with the debate. Some argued to me that perhaps the greatest campaign slogan for the yes case could have been 'Just get it over and done with!' But there was a bigger picture at play and Australians responded to that bigger message in support of equality, in support of love, in support of respect for one another across our nation. I am thrilled that we have come to this point where we will vote together as a parliament, where we will act on the will of the Australian people, where we will deliver the equality that Australians deserve. I am incredibly proud today to commend this bill to this Senate.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:50): It is high time to deliver marriage equality for our nation. We across the country have absolutely campaigned our hearts out and Australia is ready. We didn't need a postal survey to tell us that. We've long been ready and we've long had majority support for it in our nation—for a decade at least. So this place must now finally do its job. I have to say that, like thousands of other Australians, I was dismayed and hurt back in 2004 when the federal parliament, including my own party, entrenched discrimination in our nation's Marriage Act. Back then, the LGBTI community were starting to organise to seek to access marriage and test the Marriage Act through the courts, and we were doing that because the groundswell of support had begun back then.
However, I have always believed in equal treatment for all Australians. It's a political touchstone for me and it comes in part from my own experience of discrimination. I have to say, it's been hard work going head-to-head with the no campaign and going door-to-door to ask for the right to marry in the postal survey. It's of no surprise to me that calls to mental health helplines increased in recent months. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Australians endured this, and for that our community needs to be commended. It has been a long and difficult campaign where we've been subjected to a great deal of lies and misinformation about our families and our lives. I'm very proud to be part of a party—especially proud of Senator Penny Wong, Bill and Tanya—who've given this campaign their all.
I have to say, though, that I have been dismayed at the lack of recognition coming from the government on the impacts of this hurtful campaign on the LGBTI community. The spikes that we've experienced in mental health lines and support are real and it will take our community some time to heal, as joyous as yesterday was. There has been no extra funding for mental health services, and I ask the government for that funding now. I know firsthand the hurt that people experienced. I saw the vandalism and graffiti. I heard stories like that of the five-year-old boy who came home and told his mums he needed a new family. Also that of another mum, who's a good friend of mine, whose son was on the couch late at night with her after he woke from a nightmare, and on came an ad about same-sex parents while she's trying to calm her child. I am just very glad that my own son is too young to understand. Yesterday, his dads told me that he was happily talking about equality transformers.
Let's be clear, there's nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer or questioning. There's nothing wrong with being a lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, queer or questioning parent. Australians know that and they showed that overwhelmingly in the result of the survey. It's a great relief, and it's humbling that Australians have stood up for us. It is, after all, not our identities but stigma and discrimination that affect peoples' mental health.
To the yes campaign: I'm very proud of you all. You made more than 100,000 doorknocks and a million phone calls. That is absolutely epic. You should be so proud of this result, and I humbly thank all of you and your allies who campaigned your hearts out. You have made this legislation real. This legislation rights these wrongs. Our love is real, our relationships are true, our children are cherished, we exist and our love exists, and your campaigning efforts mean that finally our nation's laws will recognise this. I pay tribute to the thousands of 'yes' campaigners led by a formidable team, many of whom are in the chamber today: Alex, Tom, Tiernan, Anna, Corey, Lee and so many others: PFLAG and Rodney Croome. I want to say a special thanks to Nita, who has been one of our field campaigners in Queensland; Jacob in the ACT—what an outstanding result here—Emma in Western Australia; and the fantastic efforts of Rainbow Labor right around the nation. I'm especially proud, as you will be, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, of the strong result in our home state in Western Australia where, sometimes, we're mistakenly called conservative, but our result at 63.7 per cent is the second-strongest state. As I have championed LGBTI issues in my home state, this strong result is not a surprise to me. I was proud, for example, to be part of a state that legislated to allow same-sex couples to adopt back in 2001. All that changed back then was that more children who needed a stable, loving home could have one.
Today, we ask this chamber that couples who love each other, regardless of gender, be able to marry. So many have campaigned their hearts out across the nation, and I want to thank you all. I have been fighting for equality since I was 22 years old, and I especially want to pay tribute to all those who campaigned in much, much harder times when our identities were still criminalised and silenced. Without decades of their visibility and activism, we would not be here today with this bill before parliament. I'm very proud to have been part of the development of Dean Smith's bill and the committee processes. I thank Dean humbly. It's terrific that Western Australia has such a proud history of electing gay members of parliament, like Brian Greig before us, who was one of this place's first champions on these issues.
The bill we have put forward is the right bill. The logic of this bill, formed after the inquiry, is very sound. It upholds the rights of all couples to marry and it does this at the same time as upholding the right of religious institutions to continue to define marriage according to their own doctrines. We have taken great care on these points. The bill before us does not embed further discrimination in the Marriage Act, and we must take great care not to in any further amendments. Australians didn't vote for people to have the right to refuse services to a same-sex couple seeking to get married any more than they voted to refuse service to an interfaith-heterosexual couple or an interracial couple. Australians voted for equality, not for more discrimination. To legislate to give people a right to discriminate on the provision of goods and services would simply go too far.
On that note, I again reflect on the fact that this has been a long and difficult campaign. We've been subjected to lies and misinformation about our families. I want to be clear, though—and those in the chamber who've joined us from the yes campaign will understand this—the no side is right about one thing: marriage is not the only issue we care about. Marriage equality is not the only issue of interest to the LGBTI community. There are issues like the rights of young people to access treatment for gender dysphoria without going to court, the rights of LGBTI people to be safe from bullying at school and the rights of intersex people to be protected from surgery to which they have not consented. These issues have been under-recognised, in part because we have had to spend all this time and energy campaigning on marriage.
While the no campaign went out of their way to campaign on issues that had nothing to do with marriage—in the attacks that they launched on transgender people, vulnerable kids in schools and same-sex couples raising children—in order to prosecute their anti-marriage-equality agenda, the result is a resounding rejection of those arguments, and the result is a victory for all in the LGBTI community. Those arguments hurt our community. They hurt young people, trans people, children and families who weren't really at the centre of the substantive debate about what a mutual commitment is between two people who want to marry each other. The results of the survey show that they did not win the arguments about marriage; they did not win the arguments about schools; and they did not win the arguments about children—and any forthcoming amendments on those grounds must be rejected. If this legislation is amended to single out same-sex couples or our children for discrimination in any way, that is not marriage equality. I look forward, finally, to real marriage equality in this nation, and the bill before us can and will, with the good grace of the members of this place and the other place, deliver that.
Finally, I want to say that this is a hard week to be away from my own family, my partner and my son. We all watched yesterday on the television as loving couples shared terrific moments and their joy, but, for LGBTI members of this place who are away from our loved ones, it was a hard thing to do. But I know I've got a job to do in order that my family can have the recognition it deserves. I look forward to people in my own family being able to have their marriages recognised. To Stephen and Dennis: you were civil unioned in Ireland and married for a short time in Canberra, and, finally, I'm pleased that you will be able to have your commitment to each other recognised in your own country and your own community. My beloved partner, Bek, and I also want to marry. And I know we share the feelings of other same-sex couples who look forward to the focus turning from a massive public debate about our lives and our identities and turning towards each other, for the love we share for each other and for our children. We look forward to celebrating our love and having it recognised in front of our family, our friends, and our community. Today we are a step closer to that moment, and I thank you.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (11:05): When Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced on 8 May 2016 that there would be an election on 2 July, resulting in the longest campaign in history, the whole of Australia let out a sigh, and rightly so. It was a long and exhausting campaign, but it was a campaign to elect the government of our nation; it was not a public survey on the human rights of members of our community; and, while campaigning for the election was rough, it was nothing compared to what the LGBTIQ people have experienced simply seeking the equal right to marry. No-one here can say they haven't seen or heard about the level of vitriol directed at LGBTIQ people who are open about their sexuality and their families and friends. Nor can we plead ignorance about the impact this has had on the mental health of the LGBTIQ community as the nation decided whether they were worthy of a human right. Yesterday, as I stood in a room with my parliamentary colleagues, the anticipation of the result was palpable. When the TV froze for a moment, the room seemed to inhale and let out a collective sob. With the number of LGBTIQ people in the room, it seemed symbolic of the weight of the world on their shoulders during the campaign.
I want to recognise the courage of my colleagues for whom this was a deeply personal campaign. They have stood in this place, in front of the nation, exposing their personal lives to advance the legal rights of others. We wouldn't be here today without you. Thank you.
I've said previously when speaking on same-sex marriage that, for most of us in this place, we can only imagine what it feels like to have our personal lives subjected to a public vote. But over the past few weeks my imagination has become more vivid as I've seen the effects firsthand. Initially, there was a tremendous focus on the Abbott family, like they were the only family dealing with conflicting views, but, throughout the country, conversations about how one would vote were going on between hundreds of thousands of families and households. Included in those families were people who hadn't disclosed their sexuality—same-sex attracted people who were being told by a family member that they oppose same-sex marriage and would be voting no. Imagine knowing you were same-sex attracted and hadn't told anyone and a public debate about your rights, your personal relationships, was in full swing and your family were voting against you, before you'd had the opportunity to be honest with them and to tell them who you were. I'm told it feels like a knot in the stomach that won't go away, like you might throw up but it wouldn't be enough to stop you feeling sick or feeling fear. I'm told it feels like the words just won't come out, because what if they look at you differently? What if you're treated differently?
If we think this debate is just about whether two people of the same sex can marry, then we are mistaken. This debate has been about our acceptance of human beings of the same sex loving each other and how we treat them as a nation. We've labelled and classified our family members, friends, colleagues and members of our community based on who they're attracted to and who they love, and we've decided they get fewer rights than the rest of us. And there's not been one single convincing argument during this campaign for why this should be the case. I'll run quickly through some of these main arguments: religion—or, as Macklemore would say, a book written 3,500 years ago; children of same-sex couples would be disadvantaged; so-called gay agendas would fill our schools; and cake bakers and florists would be forced to provide their services for same-sex weddings, which they may oppose. Yes, these arguments are put simply, but they can also be refuted quite simply.
It's widely accepted by parliamentarians that religious institutions will be protected under any bill that amends the Marriage Act. Children are more disadvantaged by the level of hate in this debate, by the lack of acceptance of LGBTIQ people and by being raised in households where there is no love. Marriage equality does not equal a school curriculum with a gay agenda and it's misleading to say so.
Allowing wedding service providers to discriminate on the basis of a person's sexuality is fundamentally wrong. How do same-sex couples determine if the cake baker is opposed to their marriage? A sign out the front of the door? Or do they wait to be asked and then have to be told to their face that their custom is refused because they happen to want to marry a person who happens to be of the same sex? What an awful situation to confront! It was heartening to read yesterday that the Baking Association of Australia has said that they don't want to be involved in this debate, asking, 'What cake baker in their right mind wouldn't bake someone a cake?'
Such positive statements are so heartening, because the survey has been awful enough. That Australia has held what was essentially a mass opinion poll on human rights, and on a matter which will have no real effect on the vast majority of voters, is an indictment on this government. In 2004 the then Prime Minister John Howard amended the Marriage Act without such a poll. In fact, less than hour after he announced the proposed changes, which included banning gay couples from adopting children from overseas, the government rushed the legislation into parliament.
While we are walking down memory lane, there were many noteworthy movements of historical changes to marriage laws in Australia. In 1918 the Aboriginals Ordinance was passed to restrict marriage between Indigenous women and non-Indigenous men in the Northern Territory, and other state laws were in place to control marriage for Indigenous Australians. Until 1942, the minimum age of marriage was 12 for women and 14 for men. It was subsequently raised to 16 and 18 respectively.
Uniform marriage laws across Australia were established in 1961 through the Commonwealth Marriage Act, which made the minimum marriageable age 18. Until 1966 married women couldn't be employed in the Commonwealth Public Service so that they didn't steal men's jobs and instead boosted the birth rate. Many women kept their marriages a secret as a result. No-fault divorce was legislated in 1975. No longer did couples have to prove wrongdoing and, as a result, the divorce rate temporarily skyrocketed.
While not Australian history, but perhaps as a symbol of just how far behind we are in this country, in 2001 the Netherlands became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage. Just three years later John Howard legislated specifically to prohibit same-sex couples marrying here. Twenty-five countries followed the Netherlands' lead; only Ireland put the issue to a referendum. Australia held a non-compulsory non-binding survey. How embarrassing!
I'm proud to say, though, that in my home state of South Australia 79.7 per cent of eligible voters participated in the survey, returning a yes vote of 62.5 per cent, higher than the national figure of 61.6 per cent. As the youngest female member of the 45th Parliament—and I will give my age away: I'm 31!—I've been acutely aware of the perception that young people do not care about politics. How amazing is it then that this survey activated young people to register to vote and to turn out in droves to cast their votes. The future is bright for that reason alone.
So, here we are, having gone backwards as a country on this issue and now with an unprecedented national survey producing an overwhelming yes vote in support of changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. I had the opportunity to participate in the Senate inquiry into what is known as the 'Dean Smith bill', which is the bill before us today. On this bill, the Nick Xenophon Team agrees with the comments made by the Law Council's Fiona McLeod, who said:
The Smith Bill supports the protection of religious freedoms in two key ways. It permits ministers of religion and religious marriage celebrants to refuse to solemnise a marriage and it allows bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to provide goods or services for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage.
While the Law Council does not endorse every detail of the Smith Bill it represents a better balance from a human rights perspective and represents greater fairness, including those affected by winding back anti-discrimination laws.
On human rights, the explanatory memorandum of the bill says that it enacts Australia's international obligations in respect of the human rights of freedom of expression, association, thought and conscience, and the rights of the child. What it doesn't do is permit conduct which is unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act. It protects only genuine beliefs which are not fictitious, capricious or an artifice. In removing one form of discrimination we must not, as legislators, replace it with another or, as some would propose, a more expanded form of discrimination.
Just as John Howard amended the Marriage Act in 2004 without delay, the 45th Parliament must amend it now because we have already been too slow, because the debate has caused too much harm, because we have a bill that has been through the Senate committee process and has had the appropriate level of scrutiny, because those opposed are playing with people's lives and it's time to say enough is enough. The very direct outcome of this debate can be and should be marriage equality, but the indirect consequences are vast. For those who are same-sex attracted and who couldn't change even if they wanted to, their stories and indeed their lives may just be that bit easier. Once this task is done, we can move on to the other injustices in the law which relate to the LGBTIQ people in this country. We must keep moving forward so that same-sex attracted people no longer feel scared or sick or like they matter less and deserve fewer rights than other Australians. The government committed to passing a bill for marriage equality. Let's get on with it. There can be no further reason for delay. They have all well and truly been exhausted. To borrow the words of Bob Dylan, stop criticising what you don't understand. Love has won. Let's hand it its reward.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (11:16): I too rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Firstly, I must commend my close friend and Western Australian Senate colleague Senator Dean Smith. Dean and I have been friends for over 30 years and his magnificent speech this morning moved me to tears. There are no words to describe just how proud I am of him today. I'm proud of Senator Smith's courage, his commitment and his perseverance. I'm proud of his eloquence and compassion.
We asked Australians to have their say and, by heaven, they have. It is now up to us to respect their will and pass this bill this year. This is why I was very proud and honoured to co-sponsor the motion to bring on this bill to start the debate today, the day after the results were known. As Liberals, we cherish and fight to preserve freedoms of parliamentary democracy: the freedoms of thought, worship, speech and association. For me, this debate has always been about preserving and balancing two potentially competing democratic principles: equality and the freedoms of religion and speech.
In Australia, there is no more valued principle than equality—that all Australians are equal, but they must also be treated equally under the law and have an equality of opportunity in all aspects of their life. That of course includes the legal right to marry. Yesterday's results and historic participation rate demonstrate that Australians are also invested in legal equality in marriage. As a Christian, I also believe we must ensure that we continue to cherish and preserve religious freedoms and the freedoms of speech and of association. As Senator Smith observed this morning, they are two different but equally important principles.
I believe that this bill provides legal equality for all Australians in relation to marriage without diminishing existing religious or speech freedoms. That said, I have reserved and continue to reserve my right to support amendments in this or in any other subsequent bills that strengthen these freedoms as long as they do not conversely restrict the freedoms of others. I also think it is important, noting what those on the other side of this chamber have said, that all of my colleagues in this place have the opportunity to have their say on this issue and also have the opportunity to move amendments that they believe would strengthen religious protections.
This debate has also caused me to reflect on the role of us in this chamber. As we know, probably more so in this chamber than in most other places, in any democracy we always have to balance freedoms, and no freedoms are ever truly free. Therefore, it is our responsibility to have robust debate to work out where we and where the community see those balances to the infringement of our democratic freedoms. With almost every bill that we introduce and pass in this place, we do trade off in some way individual freedoms for the collective good. This is one of the most important responsibilities for all of us, and it is something that I addressed in my first speech and that I remain very cognisant of. It is also, I would note, one of the greatest sources of ideological friction in positions on policy in this place, but I think that is a good thing. It is a good thing for Australia and it is a good thing for our democracy.
But, since becoming a senator, I have regularly observed this balance should never be achieved through force, through coercion or through community apathy or lack of engagement. To preserve our democracy and our society, we have to retain ways of hearing things that make us all uncomfortable and then be able to robustly and respectfully debate the issues. How else can we in this chamber preserve what is of value to those we represent and to our community?
Quite often in this place I have reflected somewhat despairingly that I believe we as a society sometimes appear to be in danger of losing this ability to robustly and respectfully debate the issues of the day. But, whatever your personal opinions of the survey, we promised the Australian people we would seek their opinions and attitudes on this, and we have. Whatever you personally think about this, one of the, I think, most unexpected but absolutely wonderful outcomes of this is that it has been demonstrated that, if we ask Australians for their opinion on things that they care deeply about, they will have their say and they will clearly let us know what they want.
I think that is so important for us here in this place for a number of reasons—first of all, that there are still ways of engaging the Australian community on issues that are of importance to them and making them feel that their voice counts and they are not as disenfranchised as they may have thought in our democracy. Over the course of my career, I've had the great privilege to work for many Australian and international democratic institutions, and I've often had cause to reflect on the nature and health of our own democracy. I have seen all too often, globally, what others sacrifice, including their lives, to realise and achieve the same democratic rights and responsibilities we have here in Australia and, all too often now, take for granted. In fact, not only do many Australians take our democratic rights and responsibilities for granted but they're increasingly ambivalent and disillusioned with the way our democracy runs. So one of the many wonderful outcomes of this survey is that this proves that that is not always the case. Maybe the reason that people are so disillusioned with politics is that, as politicians, we haven't gone back and asked people their opinions often enough. While we are responsible for making those decisions ultimately, finding ways to more regularly engage and really listen to what's important to the Australian people is a prospect that I and, I'm sure, others in this place relish pursuing. So yesterday was a significant victory for our democracy because, as I said, it demonstrates that people can be invested in the democracy and the decision-making processes.
One thing that struck me, particularly over the last 12 months, as I've engaged with a number of bright, articulate, passionate younger Australians, is that I keep hearing them say 'I want to be heard'. I say to them: 'Well, here I am. What do you want to tell me? I'm a senator.' You can almost hear the crickets chirp, and they'll say, 'But I want to be heard,' and I say, 'Yes, but what about?' So one of the other wonderful things is that this has given the next generation of Australian citizens and voters an opportunity to demonstrate that they still care about issues but perhaps we just haven't been listening to them in the right ways. I think this survey again has given us an indication not of having surveys every year but of finding new ways of engaging people and giving them a voice, because if they didn't know what they actually wanted to tell us then this has given us a great idea. The level of engagement is something that, again, is a wonderful news story in this, and I think the nearly 80 per cent has defied the expectations of even the most optimistic proponents of this survey.
Another thing I'm very proud of is that I participated in the party room debate two years ago. I heard there was an opportunity for our party to put forward and to realise what we've got to here today. Despite the vehement opposition of those opposite to go ahead with a plebiscite or a survey, I hope even the most sceptical of those opposite would at least acknowledge that we were right in going to the people and giving them a say, and that it has resulted in this outcome. I'm particularly proud of this outcome, as a Liberal and as a Liberal-National coalition government, and I'm proud that it's largely through the efforts and perseverance of Senator Smith, whose bill we are dealing with here today.
I'd like to go through some of the participation figures because I think they are highly significant. So 79.5 per cent of all Australians had their say. This is higher than the turnouts for the British general election, the French presidential election and the Irish referendum, which were 68 per cent, 74 per cent and 60 per cent respectively. This is a triumph. In fact, the highest vote in a national Australian plebiscite before this was in the 1917 conscription referendum 100 years ago, where the no case secured 53.8 per cent of the vote. The highest 2PP vote in a federal election was 56.9 per cent in 1966 and the second biggest majority in parliamentary history was secured by John Howard in 1996, with 53.6 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. What this means is that with 62 per cent, the yes case has secured the strongest possible mandate on an issue for parliament to action on their behalf—more than any other vote or survey in this nation's history. I also agree with Senator Smith that Australians have not voted for equality before the law so that equality before the law in other areas can be deliberately or inadvertently stripped away.
For many years, we've had numerous debates both in and outside of this place on the merits and implications of same-sex marriage. A central pillar of those arguments, both for and against, has been predicting the attitudes of the Australian people. As we well know, there have been many and varied numbers bandied around in that debate over the years. While I do agree in principle that under the responsible system of government that we have it is ultimately our responsibility to make these decisions, I think that the turnout and the response and the definitive numbers that we now have indicate that this was an important exception to that general rule and that Australians have appreciated being asked. To again quote Senator Smith—I thought what he said this morning was very profound:
To those who want and believe in change and to those who seek to frustrate it, I simply say: don't underestimate Australia, don't underestimate the Australian people—
how right you are—
don't underestimate our country's sense of fairness, its sense of decency and its willingness to be a country for all of us.
Of all the things that we as a nation should be very proud of today, it is that point. What it does demonstrate is that not only does our country live these values, but it now also votes for them as well. I'd like to share the words of Winston Churchill, and I think his views on this are quite fitting for this debate. He said:
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Since the yes and no campaigns commenced in response to the government's postal survey, parliamentarians, and indeed all Australians, have heard a range of views on what same-sex marriage should look like in this country. We've also had the time to inquire into and reflect upon the appropriate way to amend the Marriage Act and related legislation in a way that respects the will of the Australian people and also acknowledges the concerns of those who support the traditional definitions of marriage. I know that all in this place understand that there is a need to respect those in our society who do hold deep religious beliefs and are unable to preside over, or conscientiously opposed to presiding over, same-sex ceremonies because of these beliefs.
I commend all of those who participated in the inquiry and those who drafted the bill. It is a considered and comprehensive response to the issue of same-sex marriage. It has consciously used the work of the Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill as the basis for the development of this particular bill. I think it's important to go back and reflect now on what this committee said. It found there was a wideranging desire, amongst groups supportive and non-supportive of same-sex marriage, to protect religious freedoms in any future legislation. What we have before us today does represent a bipartisan and sensible way forward on the matter of same-sex marriage, and I believe it does achieve the intent of those who voted yes in this survey.
The Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill reported in February this year, as I've said, and did deliver a consensus report. The committee was chaired by my colleague the very well-considered and well-respected Liberal Senator David Fawcett and, as you know, included Liberal Senators Dean Smith and James Paterson, Labor Senators Louise Pratt and Kimberley Kitching, Greens Senator Janet Rice and NXT Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore. The committee received over 400 submissions from a wide range of submitters, including leaders of many faiths. Their report identified a broad desire and willingness from parties to protect religious freedom in respect of marriage in any future same-sex marriage legislation. The consensus nature of that report was the primary focus of debate when the report was tabled in this place. Senator Fawcett remarked that the report was a good example of parliamentarians working well together and identifying those fundamental rights that must be carefully considered, respected and balanced in future same-sex legislation.
I reiterate that I look forward to hearing the opinions of all of my colleagues in this place. But I also look forward to hearing their recommended amendments in the committee stage, because I think it is important that we have this robust debate here. I'm certain that, throughout that process in the next week, the bipartisanship and the goodwill that has been exhibited so wonderfully across this chamber in this debate will continue. And to be part of that, I could not be prouder.
My thanks to the millions of Australians who came out and voted. We have heard you very loudly and clearly, and we will, in this chamber, respect your will.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (11:33): It's a great pleasure to rise to speak on this historic legislation today. The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 aims to deliver what we know a majority of Australians want, and that is equality for every Australian. Before speaking today, I was thinking about my own childhood. As a young person growing up, one of the fascinations I had was reading and learning about the civil rights struggle, in America particularly, in the 1960s—something that was reflected here in the battles for the rights of Indigenous people in our own country. I was really fascinated to think of a time before I was born when people in the United States, in Australia and in many other countries around the world were treated poorly and were actively discriminated against on the basis of their race. We know that that continues to go on, and that is something that remains to be addressed. As a young person growing up in Brisbane, I just could not comprehend a world in which people were so actively discriminated against on the basis of their race. I remember taking pleasure in the fact that at least the country that I grew up in, at that point in time, was not quite so bigoted. Unfortunately, what this debate and the battle over the last few years has highlighted is that there are many quarters in Australian society where discrimination does occur against people and that we still have so much more to do. I never expected when I was young to be participating in a debate about legislation designed to knock over overt discrimination, which is something that continues to occur each and every day to LGBTI Australians. I cannot say how pleased I am to have even a very small role in trying to eliminate this discrimination once and for all.
Despite the discrimination of the past and present, today is a great day when we take another step towards addressing inequality, particularly on ground of sexuality. I have been a long-time supporter of marriage equality. As a member of the Queensland state parliament, I supported the establishment of civil unions in Queensland in 2011. Six years later, although I am disappointed that it has taken so long for us to get here, I'm really proud to be able to be supporting this bill here today. The time for delay is over. The time for marriage equality is right now.
I will address the process that has led us here today. It is unfortunate that we have had to undertake this lengthy and delayed process, particularly the Turnbull government's divisive, expensive and unnecessary postal survey. No-one wants to look back too much, and today is a positive day when we are concentrating on moving forward, but it is important to set the record straight about how we got here. When the government first proposed the plebiscite my Labor colleagues and I stood with the LGBTI community and said that we didn't want a divisive, expensive opinion poll to tell the government what they should have already known, and that is that every Australian should be equal. That is something that all of us elected to this chamber should have within our fibre and our bones but, unfortunately, that is not the case. We on this side of the chamber argued that a plebiscite—any plebiscite—was not the right way to do the right thing. We argued that it would be hurtful and harmful to vulnerable Australians, and I have to say we were right. Despite the overwhelming yes victory, we can never undo the damage the postal survey has done. I remember conversations that I've had over the last few weeks with mental health services on the Gold Coast, where my office is based, and they were reporting, as so many other mental health services across Australia have reported, increased demand for their services, particularly from younger gay and lesbian people. That damage will take a very long time to undo.
Let's be very clear about one thing. Instead of just having parliament do its job, Prime Minister Turnbull and Senator Brandis said to Australia that they would rather waste $122 million and put lives at risk than have a debate and a discussion about equality that would expose the deep divisions that exist within their own party room. The government said to all Australians, especially LGBTI Australians: 'You must endure a two-month campaign about whether the love that you have, your family has or your son or daughter has for their partner is equal.' The government would have you believe that the participation rates and the yes result vindicate the postal survey. They do not. I sat next to volunteers from the yes campaign as they were making calls to other Australians to ask them to vote on their own equality, so I can tell you what they were feeling and what the turn-out numbers really mean. I will never forget the faces of those volunteers as I sat around the table calling potential voters, call after call. On some occasions they would be overjoyed by the reaction they got from someone who intended to vote yes, but I will never forget the look of rejection and shame that they felt every time they struck a voter who was intending to vote no, against their own equality and against their own worth as an individual. That is something that no Australian should ever have had to be put through. The participation rates in this survey are a testament to the brave work of those volunteers. They are not a vote of confidence in the Turnbull government's actions to get here today. Australians voted for equality not because of this government but despite this government, and they will never forget who forced them to go down this humiliating path.
I don't want to dwell overly on the negative aspects of this debate, because this is a very important reform that we should be celebrating. But I do also just want to address the issue of proposed amendments or the prospect of any procedures in this place being used to delay the passage of this bill. Prime Minister Turnbull promised respectful debate during this postal survey, and we know that that didn't occur. Senators in this chamber have called for a respectful debate during the passage of this legislation, and I agree with them, but the most disrespectful thing that the government or any senator in this place can do, now that Australians have voted so overwhelmingly to support equality, is to use this bill as another opportunity to create new forms of discrimination and to attempt to delay the passage of this legislation in any way. That is not what Australians want, and it is time that we listened.
We know now that a majority of Australians emphatically support marriage equality. I am extremely proud to say that my home state of Queensland voted overwhelmingly in support of a yes result, with more than 60 per cent of Queenslanders doing so. Unfortunately, Queensland has had a difficult history when it comes to recognising the rights of our LGBTI community, and that is why this outcome is particularly remarkable and signifies a significant shift in Queensland's history. It was interesting last night, being at the celebration in Lonsdale Street in Braddon, the number of people I ran into who, yet again, wanted to wheel out the old stereotypes of Queensland. I'm sure, Senator Smith, that's probably happened to you in relation to Western Australia as well. Unfortunately, many of our southern comrades have yet to learn that the frontier states of Queensland and Western Australia have changed and voted strongly in favour of the yes case. One of these days people will understand that they are not the places they used to be.
But the truth is that some of these stereotypes do linger, particularly because of the actions of the Bjelke-Petersen government back in the seventies and eighties in my home state. That was a really dark time for transparency, accountability and civil rights in Queensland. No-one knows that more than our LGBTI community in Queensland. Their treatment was absolutely horrendous and it will leave a black cloud over Queensland for many years to come. It's so pleasing that the Queensland Labor government has taken steps in the past few years to right these wrongs and to reverse discrimination that is still embedded in many Queensland laws. After being elected in 2015 the Palaszczuk Labor government reinstated civil unions, which had been removed by the Newman government, legislated to enable same-sex couples to adopt in Queensland, restored funding to LGBTI advocacy groups and equalled the age of consent—something that the government that I was a part of only a few years before had thought was just too difficult politically. Finally, only a few months ago the Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, on behalf of the Queensland parliament, made a formal apology to people charged under historical antihomosexuality laws and introduced an expungement scheme, something that we've seen across many states of Australia. That's what equality looks like: dismantling discrimination and righting wrongs.
Now, from Coolangatta to Capricornia and all the way up to Cape York, Queenslanders have sent a clear message: they don't want to go back to the dark days where businesses could refuse service to people based on their race, sex or religion; they want to move forward and give equality to all Australians, and any party who is not ready to move on with them will be left behind. This is particularly the case on the Gold Coast, where in every federal electorate over 60 per cent of people have voted for marriage equality. This is an overwhelming result and shows that the Gold Coast as a whole supports equality, fairness and love for all. Queensland is a big state with a big heart. We welcome every gay and lesbian couple from all around Australia who wants to come to our state for their weddings and their honeymoons. Our tourist industry on the Gold Coast, in Cairns and everywhere in between is ready to celebrate with you.
Before I wrap up, I want to pay tribute to the members of Rainbow Labor Queensland and the many LGBTIQ activists in Queensland. Not only over recent months but over many years you fought hard and you never gave up. I want to make a special mention of my mate, LGBTI elder Phil Carswell. Phil is an Order of Australia honouree for his work fighting the HIV epidemic back in the 1980s. He played a crucial role in supporting the establishment of the Queensland AIDS Council. Phil started dialysis earlier this month. His health isn't the best these days. He married his partner in New York a few years ago, because he got sick of waiting for all of us to do the right thing. All he wanted was for marriage equality to pass before it was too late for him. Phil, we're almost there. Thank you to you and your community. Phil, I haven't forgotten the many conversations we've had over the years where you've reminded me that marriage equality isn't the end of the road for true equality for LGBTI people. There are still so many other issues, whether we're talking about health, employment status or the many other things where we still have room to move.
I also want to take a moment to thank those members of this chamber who've contributed to the drafting and introduction of this bill. To Senator Smith, Senator Rice and members of every political party who've supported this bill, I thank you on behalf of Queenslanders. You've demonstrated to this country what can be achieved when we work together to deliver important reform. Just today, while I was grabbing a coffee, I was talking to someone who noted the fact that this is a reform that really has been driven by the grassroots—by ordinary Australian people speaking up for what they want. I think that's a model that we can take on board for the future as we try to address other important reforms. I especially pay tribute to my friends and colleagues Senator Wong and Senator Pratt, who have led the way for Labor in this fight for equality in this chamber. I can't imagine what your families have had to endure during this time. You are both brave, incredible women and Australia is richer and better because of your leadership.
There's one other brave, incredible woman who I want to thank, and that's my chief of staff, Nita Green. Nita is a fabulous person who I first met several years ago on a federal election campaign. As I often tell her, the thing that grabbed my attention was that twinkle in her eye as she sat down and campaigned incredibly hard on these issues and many other issues back in that campaign, where we got absolutely demolished, in 2013. From that day forward, it's been absolutely fantastic watching Nita's growth as a person and as a campaigner. There has been no greater time that she has demonstrated those qualities than over the last few weeks, when she took leave from my office to be the field director of the equality campaign in Queensland. She can take a lot of credit for that incredible result in Queensland. Congratulations to you, Nita. You're an inspiration to me and many other people each and every day.
I support marriage equality because love is about two people and those two people only. Marriage is about love. Families should be about love—and that is it, plain and simple. I love my family. There's nothing better than our Christmas mornings together, our Saturdays spent at the soccer field or our trips to the beach. For too long in this country, a part of our community has been denied the right to call their families and their relationships equal to mine, and that is not good enough. If we pass this legislation, it will have a profound effect on those Australians who have always felt devalued because of their sexuality. If we pass this legislation, it will have a profound effect on our country. Finally, LGBTI Australians will become full members of our community, but, more importantly, there will be a generation of young Australians who will grow up feeling free to be completely themselves and to love whoever they want.
Sadly, inequality does remain in Australia on many fronts. There are still too many LGBTI Australians suffering discrimination. Our Indigenous brothers and sisters suffer on a whole range of fronts. Rural and remote Australians suffer worse health outcomes and, if you come from a poor family, your life chances are still likely to be poorer. But today is a great step forward for equality. One of the many photos that were circulated as the celebrations ensued yesterday was a photo of a number of Labor senators celebrating this as the news came out. I was looking at that photo and at the centre of it, as she rightly should have been, was Senator Wong breaking down in tears, as she did in many photos that day. I looked at the photo and at who was around her. We had a gay, Asian woman, a gay Caucasian woman, Senator Pratt, an Aboriginal elder, Senator Dodson, a mischievous young Iranian migrant, Senator Dastyari, and lots of straight, white Aussies standing around celebrating. I thought to myself: that's Australia. That's modern Australia and this bill reflects modern Australia.
Australia is a fair and tolerant country. We take care of each other and we stand up for what's right. It's time this parliament delivers this important reform and rights this wrong. No more delays—it's time for celebration; it's time for equality. Let's get this done.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:49): I know there's only a little bit of time and I will be in continuance. I rise today to speak to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 with joy in my heart. I have risen many times in this place to talk about marriage equality. It's such a joy to be able to talk about a bill that we're going to get through, folks! It really is a momentous day. I'm really strongly thinking of Senator Bob Brown as I stand here—all the work he did and continued to do when he was a lone voice in this chamber for the Greens. We have been carrying the standard since then. It really is a pleasure.
I thought I'd read a text that I got from one of my friends yesterday—it's part of a stream. He was one of my husband's bridesmaids when we got married. He said: 'You know it has been a surprisingly teary day for me and many others in the LGBTI community. I got a lovely text from my brother this morning, before the announcement, saying how proud he was of me and my gay rights campaigning over the years and how much he loved me. When I tried to read it to two of our friends, I burst into tears. I don't think I realised how fundamentally important this issue is and how much the negative campaigning had affected me.' And there's a little emoji with a tear and an emoji with hearts in its eyes.
This has affected so many people. When we were waiting for the result yesterday, my heart was literally thumping. I think part of that was the nervousness for the result, but also I think I was carrying the love and support of, and feelings for, so many of my LGBTIQ friends and loved ones. When the announcement came, I was one of the ones also doing the numbers. I was, going, 'He said it's this many,' and I was trying to work out the percentage.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The time for this debate has now expired. Senator Siewert, you will be in continuation upon the resumption of the debate.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:52): I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the Senate—
a) notes with deep concern the high number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out of home care;
b) acknowledges the urgent need to address this issue; and
c) calls on the Federal Govermnet to show leadership and work with state and territory governments to ensure the implementation of Aboriginal Family-Led Decision Making is delivered in partnership with Aboriginal agencies.
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:52): I present the 13th report of 2017 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 13 OF 2017
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 November 2017 at 7.18 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 February 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 February 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 February 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2018 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(e) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 February 2018 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral)
(f) the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(g) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Regional Australia) Bill 2017
Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017
Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017
Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2017
Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017
Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017
Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017
Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017
Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2017
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits — Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Facilitation) Bill 2017
Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (Voluntary Opt-out) Bill 2017
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017.
(David Bushby)
Chair
16 November 2017
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017(originated in the Senate on Wednesday 18 October 2017)"
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impact on the budget, resources and independence of the ABC
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ABC
Friends of ABC
Press Council
SBS
Friends of SBS
MEAA
Various media organisations
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
9 or 16 February 2018
Possible reporting date:
28 March 2018
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017 (originated in the Senate on Wednesday 18 October 2017)"
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impact on the budget, resources and independence of the ABC
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ABC
Friends of ABC
Press Council
SBS
Friends of SBS
MEAA
Various media organisations
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
9 or 16 February 2018
Possible reporting date:
28 March 2018
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To understand exactly what capital instruments are covered by the Bill.
To understand what consultation process APRA would be required to undertake before making determinations under the Bill.
To understand what power the executive and/or parliament is ceding to APRA.
To understand the possible implications to market concentration in the banking sector.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
APRA
ASIC
RBA
Treasury
Banks
Economists
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
February 2017
Possible reporting date:
March 2017
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To explore the behavioural responses within the labour market. To explore the expenditure implications.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Economists, including think-tanks Unions
The public service
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education & Employment
Possible hearing date(s):
February 2018
Possible reporting date:
March 2018
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider issues around negotiations with the states and territories
To consider outcomes for housing supply
To consider outcomes for the homeless community
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Commonwealth Treasury
State and Territory Governments
Homelessness Australia
National Shelter
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
Tuesday 6th February .2018
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This bill makes significant amendments to the Proceeds of Crime regime.
Given the complexity and technical nature of the amendments contained in the Bill, and its capacity to impact on individuals' rights and liberties, it would be appropriate to refer the Bill to inquiry for careful consideration.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department, Law Council of Australia, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Federal Police Association, Police Federation of Australia, State, Territory and International Bar Associations (e.g. the Victorian Bar and Criminal Bar Association), state and territory law associations! institutes (e.g. Law Institute of Victoria, NSW Law Society), the Australian Human Rights Commission, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Can be done on the papers.
Possible reporting date:
16 February 20115
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
Appendix 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bills:
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The complex nature of the Migration Act and the impact any changes may have on Australian jobs, business, people seeking a visa, industry bodies, Technical and further education institution warrants further consultation and investigation.
Stakeholders have been vocal in raising their concerns about unintended consequences of recent changes to skilled migration visas.
This legislation has significant revenue associated with the charges being levied for skilled visas which is being used to support skills development of Australians.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
TAFE Directors' Association
Australian Education Union
Australian Council for Private Education and Training
Dr. Bob Birrell, Australian Population Research Institute
Professor John Buchanan, University of Sydney
State and Territory TAFEs
State and Territory Education Departments
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Law Council of Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by committee
Possible reporting date:
9 February 2018
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
Appendix 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration
Makes changes to funding arrangements for employers of workers on temporary workers visas.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Unions, Employer Organisations, Training Organisations
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
1 December 2017
Possible reporting date:
6th December 2017
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
Senator BUSHBY: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:52): I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
"but, in respect of the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 9 February 2018."
I hope the amendment has been circulated in the chamber, but if not I will just explain to senators what the amendment is. As usual, agreement has been reached on the vast majority of the selection of bills, reporting dates and referrals. But there was one exception for the opposition, which was in relation to the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 and the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 and the referral date. My amendment is to refer it to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee with a reporting date of 9 February 2018.
We think this is an entirely reasonable a position considering the extensive list of bills that the government has before the Senate already and the acknowledgement that we will be spending a large part of the second-last week of the Senate's sitting schedule dealing with the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, which we started debating this morning. There is no shortage of legislation to deal with by the end of this year. We know that the bill itself is contested in terms of stakeholders raising concerns around some of the unintended consequences but also the lack of consultation. This bill was announced in April. If it really was that much of a priority for the government that it needed to be dealt with this year, they shouldn't have waited until September to introduce the bill. I hope that other senators support this amendment and refer those bills to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee with a reporting date of 9 February 2018.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Acting Minister for Regional Communications) (11:54): I move the following amendment to Senator Gallagher's amendment:
"in respect of the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 and the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 December 2017."
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:55): I will indicate that this is news to me. I would have carriage of much of that bill. I have not been advised of this proposed change. In fact, I have been discussing this and have had calls from other ministers to try and deal with this. The minister should defer this or I will have to oppose it.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Acting Minister for Regional Communications) (11:56): by leave—I'm advised that what we're talking about here refers to the immigration component as opposed to the education component. That's why this particular committee has been proposed.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:56): I indicate that we won't be supporting the government's amendment to the amendment, but we will be supporting Senator Gallagher's amendment.
The PRESIDENT: I will put the amendment moved by Senator Fifield to the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. The question is that Senator Fifield's amendment be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:01]
Senator Polley did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resgnation of Senator Nash.
Senator Marshall did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (12:03): We now move to the motion moved by Senator Gallagher to amend the motion to adopt the Selection of Bills Committee report.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:04): I move:
That:
(a) government business order of the day no. 3, Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument-Making) Bill 2017, be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bill listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
Business was postponed as follows:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Siewert for 28 November 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017, postponed till 4 December 2017.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs References Committee
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Community Affairs References Committee—
Affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs—extended from 27 November to 15 December 2017
Availability and accessibility of diagnostic imaging equipment around Australia—extended from 5 December 2017 to 7 March 2018
Transvaginal mesh implants—extended from 30 November 2017 to 14 February 2018.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—regulation of remotely piloted and unmanned aircraft systems—extended from 6 December 2017 to 28 March 2018.
MOTIONS
FIFA World Cup
Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (12:05): by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Di Natale, move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the Socceroos on their historic 3-1 win over Honduras in Sydney last night, qualifying for the world's biggest sporting event, the World Cup in Russia 2018. This will be Australia's 5th World Cup;
(b) acknowledges that today, 16 November 2017, marks 12 years to the day since Australia defeated Uruguay and sent the Socceroos to the World Cup in Germany, breaking the nation's World Cup drought of 32 years; and
(c) notes that according to the Australian Sports Commission over one million Australians play football (soccer) making it the most participated sport in Australia.
I once again congratulate the Socceroos and Coach Ange Postecoglou. It is a fantastic day for Australian sport.
Question agreed to.
BUDGET
Consideration by Estimates Committees
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:06): I move:
That the order of the Senate of 15 November 2017, relating to the 2018 estimates hearings, be amended as follows:
Paragraph (1), after "Tuesday, 29 May to Friday, 1 June", insert ", and, if required, Friday, 22 June".
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:07): I move:
That consideration of the business before the Senate on Monday, 4 December 2017, be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Patrick to make his first speech without any question before the chair.
Notice of motion altered on 15 November 2017 pursuant to standing order 77.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
World Toilet Day
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (12:07): I, and also on behalf of Senators Moore and Rice, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 19 November 2017, the world will observe World Toilet Day, an opportunity to reflect on the importance of safe sanitation for everyone,
(ii) in Australia, access to safe and hygienic toilets that discreetly manage human waste is a given, yet 2.3 billion people around the world lack access to even basic sanitation services,
(iii) providing universal access to safe sanitation is an ongoing challenge with nearly 900 million of the world's poorest people still practising open defecation,
(iv) poor sanitation undermines advances in education and healthcare and diminishes the dignity of those already disadvantaged and vulnerable,
(v) poor sanitation is a particular problem for women and girls – the Australian Government commissioned research in the Pacific which confirmed that lack of access to safe and functional toilets, as well as other aspects of menstrual hygiene, including washing facilities and products, such as pads, contribute to absenteeism at school and at work,
(vi) findings also show that women and girls can be subject to social stigma during menstruation, which leads to further shame and isolation,
(vii) the theme of this year's World Toilet Day is wastewater – driven by population growth, urbanisation and a changing climate, water scarcity is rapidly emerging as a global issue, and wastewater is increasingly seen as a valuable resource rather than a waste product,
(viii) wastewater poses many challenges – all over the world communities are grappling with the day-to-day dangers of polluted water, degraded environments and communities living alongside untreated or poorly treated sewage,
(ix) Australians play an important role in addressing the global sanitation problem – the Australian Government's Civil Society Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Fund is projected to provide improved sanitation to over 2.8 million people in 19 countries over the years 2013 to 2018, 60 per cent more than originally estimated,
(x) Australians will continue to support global action to address sanitation – the new Water for Women Fund will deliver community water and sanitation projects in poor countries with a focus on projects that directly benefit women and girls, and
(xi) the Prime Minister is a member of the High Level Panel on Water with ten other world leaders, which has a core focus on achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG6), ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; and
(b) recognises:
(i) universal access to safe sanitation is critical to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6 by 2030,
(ii) Australia has much to offer in this space – ours is the driest inhabited continent and we have a long history of sound, evidence-based water management and far-sighted reform, and
(iii) the strong commitment from the non-government sector, including WaterAid and Plan International, in their advocacy for safe sanitation.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Murray-Darling Basin
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:08): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Murray-Darling river system is a national resource,
(ii) the aim of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, agreed to in 2012, is to ensure that water is shared between all users, including the environment, in a sustainable way,
(iii) it is important that the plan is executed effectively and with financial responsibility,
(iv) on 26 October 2017, the Guardian revealed that the Government had purchased 22 mega litres of water at a price of $78M in circumstances where there were independent valuations for the same water of $24.8 million (an Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences valuation) and $38 million (Herron Todd White valuation), and
(v) the Senate has an obligation to inform itself as to whether taxpayers' money being spent on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is being spent efficiently and effectively; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by the start of business on 28 November 2017:
(i) all decisions and associated decision reasoning for all purchases of water across the Basin from 1 January 2017, and
(ii) all valuations/assessments in the Government's possession related to each of these purchases, including independent valuations/ assessments.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
New South Wales Government: Employment
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (12:09): I, and also on behalf of Senator Cameron, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Finance, Services and Innovation has stated that it will not be extending employment guarantees for cleaners, which have been in place since 1994, in the new contracts in 2018,
(ii) the Fair Work Act 2009 allows employers, such as the NSW government, to take this action,
(iii) 7,000 school cleaners in NSW will need to reapply for their jobs for the first time in 24 years,
(iv) many of these already precarious and underpaid workers will be placed under unnecessary financial stress, including housing stress,
(v) regional school cleaners will face the brunt of this announcement, as many of these workers will be unable to find another job in their area if their contracts are not renewed, and
(vi) United Voice NSW, the union for cleaners, is doing an excellent job advocating for these workers; and
(b) calls on:
(i) the Federal Government to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 so previous employment guarantees are retained when new contracts are drawn up, and
(ii) the NSW Government to ensure jobs are guaranteed to all cleaners who want to continue employment under the new agreement.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:09): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government acknowledges the hard work of cleaners across the country and hopes that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. The contracts themselves are a matter for the New South Wales government.
Question agreed to.
Government
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:10): I move:
That the Senate notes—
(a) that 24 November 2017 marks the 10 year anniversary of the death of good government in Australia;
(b) that the standards of government and political debate have declined since the days of Menzies, Hawke, Keating and Howard; and
(c) the urgent need for senators, members and the government to return to a focus on the principles exemplified by governments before 24 November 2007, specifically:
(i) stable government,
(ii) ministerial standards, and
(iii) fiscal responsibility.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:10): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The coalition government is providing the economic leadership Australia needs, with 371,500 jobs created over the last year and the longest run of jobs growth in 23 years. We have delivered more jobs, fair schools funding, childcare reform, tax cuts, and now a National Energy Guarantee to reduce energy prices.
Question negatived.
Abortion
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:10): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that a number of senators support a minority view in the community that gender is merely a social construct, and that gender is not determined by chromosomes or biology;
(b) questions how someone can logically, or in good conscience, also support Medicare funding of termination of pregnancy on gender grounds if that is their view;
(c) finds termination of pregnancy on gender grounds reprehensible, particularly for the value of girls and boys; and
(d) opposes Medicare funding for termination of pregnancy, where it occurs on gender grounds.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 581, standing in the name of Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reference
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:17): At the request of Senators Sterle and O'Sullivan, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 March 2018:
The operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities, with particular reference to:
(a) social and economic impacts of air route supply and airfare pricing;
(b) different legal, regulatory, policy and pricing frameworks and practices across the Commonwealth, states and territories;
(c) how airlines determine fare pricing;
(d) the determination of airport charges for landing and security fees, aircraft type and customer demand;
(e) pricing determination, subsidisation and equity of airfares;
(f) determination of regulated routes and distribution of residents' fares across regulated routes;
(g) airline competition within rural and regional routes;
(h) consistency of aircraft supply and retrieval of passengers by airlines during aircraft maintenance and breakdown;
(i) all related costs and charges imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; and
(j) any related matters.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (12:18): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: I want to thank the Labor Party for their cooperation and support for the development of this reference, which will be, of course, under the chairmanship of Senator Sterle. This is a very important reference. I am speaking out now to our crossbench colleagues to pay attention to this and support it. This is about trying to bring equity into the cost impacts of regional airline movements for our people in regional Australia, not just my home state of Queensland. We've got some very atrocious examples of gouging where it costs up to $2,000 for people to travel the same distances it costs them $78 to travel between the metros, including people who require constant medical attention and are having to go to the cities. This has to be brought to an end, and we hope this committee reference will take us some way towards being able to make recommendations to government about changes.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
New South Wales: Schools
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:19): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) reports that the New South Wales Government has determined that it will abandon the 'Crossroads' program in school Years 11 and 12, due to its radical theories about gender and sexuality, and
(ii) the program will be replaced by teaching those students life skills, such as driving a car, managing their finances and improving their mental health; and
(b) commends the New South Wales Government for taking these steps.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:19): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government has consulted the New South Wales government on this issue and welcomes the decision by the Minister for Education, Minister Rob Stokes, to accept Emeritus Professor Bill Louden's recommendations regarding the sex education elements of Crossroads. We also note that other components of the Crossroads program such as drugs education, safe driving and life skills will continue to be taught.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 583, standing in the name of Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:26]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
White Ribbon Australia
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:28): I move:
That the Senate notes that—
(a) a number of senators are White Ribbon Ambassadors, or have tabled motions supporting campaigns to stop violence against women and domestic violence; and
(b) a statement on the White Ribbon Australia website states they advocate for "nationally consistent access to safe and legal abortion, including late-term abortion in all states and territories", and if senators have a concern about that stance, they ought to take it up with White Ribbon Australia.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:29): I find the interpretation of paragraph (b) difficult. I wonder if the mover can clarify it for me. The motion reads:
That the Senate notes that—
… … …
(b) a statement on the White Ribbon Australia website …
And it goes on to say:
… and if senators have a concern about that stance, they ought to take it up with White Ribbon Australia.
Is that on the website? Is that how that reads? The statement on the White Ribbon Australia website states whatever—is 'and if senators have a concern' on the White Ribbon website?
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:29): I would like to clarify that for Senator Macdonald: no, the quotation marks are an indication of what is on the website, hence the semicolon.
The PRESIDENT: With notices of motion, these matters should probably be sorted out outside the chamber. I will put the motion now. The question is that notice of motion No. 584, standing in the name of Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:31]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:34): I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
Senator Hanson-Young: You bunch of misogynistic—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young!
Senator Hanson-Young: This is about rape victims having access to safe and legal abortion. That's what you just voted against.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young! Order!
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Macdonald! Senator Bernardi is on his feet. Order!
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, order, please. Senator Cameron on a point of order?
Senator Cameron: Senator Macdonald called Senator Sarah Hanson-Young a dill and a dope. He should withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: I did not hear that in the screaming across the chamber. If Senator Macdonald did do that, he should, but I did not hear it. I cannot attest to your claim, Senator Cameron.
Senator Ian Macdonald: I didn't call her a dill and a dope, just a dill, but I think everyone in this chamber would agree with me.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I understand you need to withdraw that. I think it was personally directed.
Senator Ian Macdonald: Calling someone a dill is unparliamentary, whereas calling someone a misogynist, as Senator Hanson-Young did—wrongly; she doesn't understand the motion—is parliamentary? Calling someone a misogynist is parliamentary? Calling her a dill is unparliamentary? What sort of ruling is that?
The PRESIDENT: All reflections are disorderly, Senator Macdonald. I've taken some advice. There are differences between reflections that are collective and individual, but I will withdraw my ruling on that. But I ask all senators, whether they are making collective or personal attributions to others, to keep the tone of debate in mind.
Communism
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:36): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the Trump administration in the United States of America has declared 7 November to be the National Day for Victims of Communism;
(b) further notes the Senate motion passed on 18 October 2017 rejecting any assertion that the teachings of Lenin or Marx should be celebrated in a liberal democracy;
(c) recalls the number of refugees who came to Australia fleeing communist regimes; and
(d) calls upon the Government to organise a similar annual commemoration remembering the victims of communism from 7 November 2018 onwards.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: This motion is identical to the motion moved in the chamber just two days ago, I think, where the opposition denied formality to it. I explained at the time that we believe motions like this, on topics like this, should not be dealt with by a simple motion of the Senate but should allow the opportunity for debate. In the interests of the smooth running of the chamber and in acknowledgement that Senator Bernardi desires to move several motions every day and that this will continue, we won't be denying formality to the motion. But our position remains that this simple motion is the wrong way to deal with this topic, and we will be opposing it.
Question agreed to.
BUDGET
Consideration by Estimates Committees
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:37): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 580, standing in my name for today, relating to the 2017-18 supplementary budget estimates, in the terms circulated in the chamber.
Leave granted.
Senator CAMERON: I move the motion as amended:
That the Education and Employment Legislation Committee meet on Friday, 1 December 2017 to consider the 2017-18 supplementary Budget estimates, in Canberra, from 9 am to 3 pm, to further examine the Employment portfolio, in respect of the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and that the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) appear before the committee at that time to answer questions.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted to cancel the division and put the motion again at the request of the chamber?
Leave granted.
The PRESIDENT: I will put the motion again. The question is that amended notice of motion No. 580 standing in the name of Senator Cameron be agreed to.
Senator Urquhart interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart, I am allowing senators to go back to their seats, given that I received numerous requests from across the chamber to cancel that division.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
GetUp!
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:40): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that political activist organisation GetUp!:
(i) was seed-funded by organisations closely connected with Mr George Soros, a renowned globalist and funder of socialist politicians and causes,
(ii) has provided and received support for left-of-centre political parties, trade unions and other organisations, and
(iii) has actively campaigned like a political party, and in every such instance, against right-of-centre politicians during election periods; and
(b) affirms that GetUp! is deserving of greater electoral regulation or scrutiny, given its impact upon our political process, economic development, support for litigation against major job-creating projects, border protection policies, national security, sovereignty and our institutions.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: Labor will be opposing this motion. Electoral regulation, particularly in the form of determining whether third parties have met the requirements to be determined as associated entities, is a matter for the Australian Electoral Commission. The AEC is an independent body, one vital for the operation of our democracy, and Labor won't be supporting any undermining of this independence. This motion comes after a long line of attacks from conservative members in this place—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator GALLAGHER: some of them interjecting now—bitter that people might actually organise and campaign against their terrible decision-making. I'm not sure who Senator Bernardi is referring to when he states GetUp! sides with left-wingers, but, judging by the fact that they've previously supported his good factional friend Stephen Marshall in South Australia, Labor understands his apprehension.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minutes.
Senator BERNARDI: I just clarify that I don't have any factional friends in South Australia. There is a faction of one in the Australian Conservatives, and so I'd ask Senator Gallagher to correct the record.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: There was a time when upholding the democratic principles was the key tenet of conservative thinking, but not anymore. What we're seeing is an unprecedented attack on civil society not just from Senator Bernardi but, indeed, from the conservatives in the Liberal Party. We saw that unprecedented attack in the raid of the AWU offices, where we had the media there before the police arrived. We've seen the attack on civil society organisations in the ban on foreign donations—for example, organisations like Oxfam, who would be prevented from advocating for more aid to poorer countries. This is an assault on democracy. Of course, if we're talking about taking money to advance causes, let's look at the roll call of organisations that are lining up to fill the pockets of the LNP.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (12:42): I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
The PRESIDENT: I put the motion. The question is that notice of motion No. 582, standing in the name of Senator Bernardi, be agreed to. I think the ayes have it. The final notice of motion is No. 585, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson.
Senator Siewert: Sorry, did you just call it for the ayes?
The PRESIDENT: I did.
Senator Siewert: The noes have it.
The PRESIDENT: I didn't hear.
Senator Siewert: You said the ayes have it.
The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Siewert, I called it, and no-one asked for a division. Are you seeking leave for me to put it again?
Senator Siewert: Yes, thank you.
Leave granted.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, I was just wondering whether there is a substantial conflict of interest in that GetUp! clearly support most of those who are voting yes. And is—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Is there a financial conflict of interest that should be disclosed?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat. That's a debating point, not a point of order. The question is that notice of motion No. 582, standing in the name of Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:45]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (12:47): The time for formal business has expired.
BILLS
Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (12:47): I rise to speak in favour of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017. I indicate that Labor supports this bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the primary legislation—the Defence Act 1903 and the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014—so that these amendments will be reflected in legislative instruments when they are remade. There are three legislative instruments that will sunset in 2018 unless they are remade before that date. These instruments are the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 and the Defence (Public Area) By-laws 1987. I'll take the chamber through each of these.
The Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 provide powers to make regulations for a range of inquiries, including general courts of inquiry, boards of inquiry, Chief of the Defence Force commissions of inquiry and inquiry officer inquiries. These inquiries all perform a similar function, which is to assist commanders in the Defence Force to obtain accurate and relevant information in a timely manner to inform their decisions and actions. Similar procedures and powers apply to each type of inquiry. The intention is to consolidate the different types of inquiries and refer only to one form of inquiry, which is flexible and which can scale to meet the circumstances of each inquiry. The amendments would provide greater flexibility in naming inquiries and replacing them with a general term, 'an inquiry'. Inquiries conducted by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the Inspector-General of the ADF and the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal are excluded from this paragraph.
The Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 maintain safety for defence aviation by including limits on building heights within prescribed areas; prohibitions on bringing hazardous objects within a prescribed area; the power to remove or mark hazardous objects within the prescribed area; and the power to enter a prescribed area to remove or mark hazardous objects. The regulations prescribe 12 defence aviation areas in the schedule. This enables the making of regulations for the regulation, control or prohibition of the construction or use of buildings, erections or installations; the use of apparatus, machines or vehicles; and the removal in whole or in part of buildings, erections, installations, apparatus, trees or other natural obstacles within prescribed areas. The regulations provide that the minister may declare an area of land, sea or air space in or adjacent to Australia to be a defence aviation area by legislative instrument.
The bill will also provide regulation-making power in relation to defence aviation areas. It will give greater clarification than previously, enabling regulations to do the following: regulate or prohibit the construction or use of buildings, structures or objects within defence aviation areas; regulate or prohibit the bringing in or having of objects within the defence aviation area; and provide for the removal, in part or in whole, marking, lighting, screening, modification or relocation of buildings, structures or objects, including trees or other natural objects, within defence aviation areas. This clarifies the existing regulation-making power by ensuring that regulations can be made to allow for action to be taken to remove or reduce existing hazards to aviation or aviation communication, no matter the nature of the hazard or the nature of the action required to remove or reduce it.
Defence area control regulations provide for authorised persons, such as an inspector, to enter defence aviation land and premises for a range of purposes. These powers will need to be remade as they are an important aspect of the scheme, ensuring there is a mechanism to deal with the hazardous objects.
A new section will be inserted to address the appointment of inspectors for defence aviation areas. Subsection 117AG(1) provides that the secretary or the Chief of Defence Force may, in writing, appoint an APS employee in the department or a member of the Defence Force as an inspector. Under subsection 117AG(2) a person may not be appointed unless the appointer is satisfied that the person has the knowledge, training or experience necessary to properly exercise the powers of a defence aviation area inspector. A new section would also be included, allowing the secretary or the Chief of the Defence Force to delegate certain powers and functions from subsections 117AG(1) and (2) to an SES employee in the department, to a Navy officer of commander rank or higher, to an Army officer of brigadier rank or higher or to an Air Force officer of air commodore rank or higher.
In relation to the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987, the by-laws apply to the public area declared by Defence under part IXB of the Defence Act. There are two public areas that have been declared under the act: the Beecroft public area in New South Wales and the Garden Island public area in Western Australia. Each public area is a significant tract of Defence land where there is strong interest in enabling public entry for recreational purposes. The main change to the by-law is the introduction of an infringement notice scheme. Defence advises that it needs to use the land identified for public area use for military exercises from time to time. This means that members of the public who are using the area would need to be moved on, at these times, for their own safety. Defence indicates that there are times when members of the public refuse to move and subsequently it requires the assistance of local police. The infringement notice scheme is intended to make parking, fishing or camping in the public areas a restricted liability offence at these times.
Labor welcomes the passing of this bill. I commend it to the Senate.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (12:56): I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017. This is a non-controversial bill which the opposition supports. I do take a close interest in defence-related matters, so I don't think any defence bill should pass through the Senate without debate.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the primary legislation, the Defence Act 1903, and the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, so that these amendments will be reflected in legislative instruments made under these acts when they are re-made. There are three legislative instruments that will sunset in 2018 unless they are re-made before this date. These are the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 and the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987.
I turn first to the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985. The power to make these regulations is at paragraph 124(1)(gc) of the Defence Act. This section provides the power to make regulations for a range of inquiries, including general courts of inquiry, boards of inquiry, Chief of the Defence Force commissions of inquiry, and inquiry officer inquiries. The intention is to consolidate the different types of inquiries—and some may say, 'Thank goodness for that!'—and refer only to one form of inquiry which has flexibility and can scale to meet the circumstances of each inquiry. The amendment would provide greater flexibility in naming inquiries and replace them with the general term 'an inquiry'.
Secondly, I turn to the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989. These regulations maintain safety for defence aviation by including limits on building heights within the prescribed areas, prohibitions on bringing hazardous objects within a prescribed area, the power to remove or mark hazardous objects within prescribed areas and the power to enter a prescribed area to remove or mark hazardous objects—and I think we can all see why they are necessary.
Thirdly, we have the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987. These by-laws apply to the public areas declared by Defence under part IXB of the Defence Act. There are two public areas that have been declared under the act: the Beecroft public area in New South Wales and the Garden Island public area in Western Australia. Each public area is a significant tract of Defence land where there is a strong interest in enabling public entry for recreational purposes. The main change to the by-laws is the introduction of an infringement notice scheme.
This bill was considered by the scrutiny of bills committee. The committee raised concerns about the extent to which it allows laws to be made by regulations and not by way of primary legislation. I quote from the committee's comments in relation to the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations.
The committee's view is that significant matters, such as these, should be included in primary legislation unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation is provided. The explanatory memorandum simply states that the bill does not make any changes to the ability to make regulations to compel a person to appear before and answer questions at an inquiry. It does not state whether consideration was given as to whether the details regarding commissions of inquiry would be more appropriate for inclusion in the primary legislation.
The committee reiterates its view that the power to appoint a commission of inquiry and the detail of the inquiry's procedures and powers contain matters that go beyond mere technical detail. The committee's longstanding view is that significant matters such as these should be included in primary legislation unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation is provided.
The Minister for Defence, in response to the committee's comments, said:
Matters relating to the appointment, procedures and powers of inquiries concerning the Defence Force have been dealt with under Regulations for many decades … The current arrangements permit a necessary degree of flexibility for the Australian Government to determine forms of inquiry in the Defence Force, having regard to administrative, organisational and operational changes that occur from time to time. At the same time, appropriate Parliamentary oversight of the content of such regulations is maintained by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, as well as sunsetting arrangements under the Legislation Act 2003.
The committee did not find this to be a particularly enlightening response. It said:
The committee notes that the fact that certain powers have been contained in delegated legislation for many years without any recommendation that they be moved to primary legislation does not address the question of whether they would be more appropriate for inclusion in primary legislation.
In relation to the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations, the scrutiny of bills committee said:
… the committee notes that the regulation of all types of hazards to aviation and aviation-related communications, which includes prohibiting the construction or use of buildings, structures or objects within a defence aviation area, is a significant matter that may be more appropriate for inclusion in primary legislation, noting that a legislative instrument, made by the executive, is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny inherent in bringing proposed changes in the form of an amending bill.
Once again, also, the committee noted that just because this area has been regulated in this way for many years does not, of itself, justify continuing this practice.
I think the scrutiny of bills committee has raised some valid concerns about the extent to which government departments—not just Defence, as in this case, but all departments—are given power to make legislative instruments without these being subject to adequate parliamentary scrutiny. This is particularly so when these instruments give departmental officers quite sweeping powers to regulate the use of property and the actions of people. Despite these concerns, the opposition will be supporting this bill because it has the merit of simplifying and bringing up to date the regulations under which Defence operates in these three areas.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:03): I'd like to thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The proposed bill will amend instrument-making powers in the Defence Act 1903 to ensure that, when remaking certain instruments made under the Defence Act, in the future the instruments can reflect modern policy requirements and approaches to drafting. As outlined during the debate, there are several instruments made under the Defence Act which are scheduled to sunset on April 2018, including the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 and the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987. These instruments deal with important subject matters, and it will be necessary to remake them in some form before they sunset. Where possible, the intention is to improve the instruments by consolidating like provisions, improving consistency and making some amendments to enhance their operation. The proposed amendments to the Defence Act will ensure there is a clear authority to remake the contents of instruments, as intended. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:05): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:05): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:05): As I stated last night, it is obviously on the public record that Labor will be opposing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill, the STA Bill. As my colleagues have said before, we don't support the superannuation laws amendment bill. We'll be voting against it at the end of the second reading speeches. If it is still to proceed, I understand there is a substantial list of Labor amendments, many of which have already been foreshadowed, with which we will be trying to improve what we believe is a bad piece of legislation.
Again, we think this is a bad piece of legislation and it should be stopped immediately. But if it were to proceed to the committee stage, I want to urge the crossbenchers not to be railroaded by the government into a timetable or a time frame that isn't going to give the opportunity for proper consideration. I note that it appears that the Senate's business will almost entirely, in our next week of sitting, be taken up by dealing with the marriage bill. Again, that is something I support. I think that's a good thing to be doing. As a Senate, I think that's important work and it's important for us to reflect the will of the people in the postal survey. But it does mean that the amount of time we're going to have to be able to deal with what are, I think, quite extensive and detailed amendments is going to be quite limited. So I urge the crossbench not to feel the need—it's a bad bill and there is no need to rush a bad bill like this. There is no need for this to be done now, and it doesn't have to be done in this way. If you're going to pass this type of substantial legislation, especially flawed, substantial legislation, then I think it is important that you take as much time as possible to give it proper consideration.
I want to run through a little bit of history here, because we have been here before when it comes to legislation like this. At the heart of it is an ideological agenda being run by the government that is about the interests of the banking sector over the interests of the superannuation sector. You're dealing with an ideology here of conservativism that has always opposed superannuation in one form or another, and has always taken steps to oppose superannuation measures and proposals, as they've been outlined in the past. The proposition really is quite simple: do you keep the money in the pockets of mums and dads saving for their retirement, or is this simply more money that is going to be available to Australian bankers? Fundamentally, this legislation, and the ideology behind it, comes down to that simple question. It's banks or battlers.
The government has shamefully been on the side of the banks every step of the way. I want to remind the crossbench that we have been here before. In 2014, when Senator Cormann wanted to roll back the Future of Financial Advice laws, a crossbench coalition turned around and said, 'No way.' In 2015, when this issue last came up—it was the freshly minted Minister O'Dwyer from the other place who wanted to give superannuation to banks—the crossbench said, 'No way.'
And we've been here many, many times. Maybe the details change a little, but it's always the same battle—first from the Abbott government, now from the Turnbull government. It's always about them wanting to put more money in the pockets of bank shareholders and taking it away from a superannuation system that, despite being the envy of the world, is something they've never ideologically supported—more money into the pockets of bank executives, more money into bankers' bonus cheques.
When Minister O'Dwyer was first appointed to cabinet from the other place back in September 2015, it appeared that this policy which was going to result in boosting the incomes of bankers had always been on her priority list. Frankly, on top of her list of things to do was this legislation. Again, it all sounds reasonable and looks reasonable, but, when you look at the heart of what the legislation will do, it's about making it easier for banks to get their sticky fingers into retirement savings. And they do this by attacking industry superannuation funds, by attacking the superannuation industry.
Minister O'Dwyer was scurrying around the Senate in 2015 from office to office, introducing herself to the crossbench, most of whom had obviously never met the member for Higgins. She'd never previously given them the time of day—I'm not even sure whether she'd ever set foot on the red carpet—but she went around reading the names on the doors and introducing herself. She introduced herself to Senator Leyonhjelm and those that didn't make it into the 45th Parliament in 2015: Senator Muir, Senator Madigan, Senator Wang and Senator Lazarus. She went around trying to convince them that they should make it easier for banks to get their hands on our retirement savings and that, of all the issues facing the financial services sector, this somehow was a priority.
The priority was not the issues at the time with the corporate regulator being asleep at the wheel. It was not the problems with whistleblowers coming to politicians because of the regulator's silence. It was not the crisis in the life insurance sector—a huge crisis that is still ongoing to this day. It was not the enormous rate-rigging scandal that was going on. And it was not even, at the time, the issue of credit card interest rates. The first priority of this government back then was complaining about what was happening around superannuation.
The disconnect between that and what senators themselves were facing at the time was stark. Senators' offices back then were hearing, and to this day still keep hearing, about dodgy financial advisers, about bank rip-offs, about insurance scams. And the minister was marching around the Senate declaring that attacking industry superannuation funds should really be the priority and that the banks should be able to get their hands on worker retirement savings.
These were the same crossbenchers who, time and time again over the previous year, had stood up to the banks, stood up to the big end of town, and absolutely made the right call to protect consumers from predatory behaviour, acting in the best interests of bank consumers and in the best interests of their savings. The crossbench of the 44th Parliament can hold their heads high about the way they acted, behaved, and respected an industry that was working, an industry that was effective. I think it's important that we recognise the success of those crossbenchers, many of whom are no longer here with us, in being able to prevent bad legislation like this on financial services matters from actually passing.
When the coalition were elected in 2013, they published a policy document called Our Plan. I'm sure those in the chamber will remember it. It had a mugshot on the front cover of then Minister Turnbull, Andrew Robb, then Minister Hockey, then Prime Minister Abbott, Julie Bishop and Warren Truss. It was a vague 20 pages. There was nothing in that at all about the Future of Financial Advice reforms. And yet, a few days before Christmas 2013, former financial services minister Senator Sinodinos issued a press release announcing that the government would be consulting on reforms. By March, Senator Sinodinos had created a new coalition: the consumer group Choice, the Council on the Ageing and National Seniors had all come out against it.
Once his portfolio had been handed to Senator Cormann, he announced a pause. And then, in the end, Senator Cormann waited for a new crop of senators. On 1 July 2014, the senators elected in the previous September arrived in parliament. I'm sure we all remember; it feels like so long ago now. There was the Palmer United Party, the Motoring Enthusiast Party, Family First and our remaining friend from that period, Senator Leyonhjelm.
But before we were even able to actually start looking at this legislation, Minister Cormann insisted that the most pressing issue was winding back FOFA so banks and financial advisers again could take more money in fees and commissions. Thankfully, by November 2014 the crossbench senators had gained some confidence, and with Senator Xenophon, who was also here at the time, we formed what we called the 'coalition of common sense'—an acronym that we later regretted!—and were able to defeat that piece of legislation.
Senators are here in this place to do everything we can to make sure people who earn money are able to see it when they retire. There's something quite fantastic about the idea behind superannuation and the Australian superannuation model. It's an idea that says there will be a savings pool for the nation, that it will take pressure off the welfare system when it comes to retirement savings and that this is all going to occur by having a system in which workers, during their earnings period, are able to put money aside for a later period.
And it's been incredibly successful. It's the envy of the world—the type, model and bipartisanship that's been experienced on superannuation for so long at a practical level. Even the Howard government, which in opposition, and certainly in government, had demonstrated ideologically a dislike for the superannuation model, and for the industry superannuation model in particular, weren't as brazen as this government has been in trying to destroy a sector that has been so effective and successful, and that has been able to provide the savings that the nation has needed.
In October last year Minister O'Dwyer invited the industry funds to a press conference held here in parliament to talk about how people's retirement savings could be used to invest in Australian jobs. Instead, at that conference she told the industry super funds that they should be more like the banks. And this was ridiculed; it was laughed at. Industry super funds consistently outperform banks. They deliver returns to their members instead of profits to bankers. APRA publishes tables year in, year out and nothing changes. Industry funds have the same investing mindset as the old mutual funds. They're not-for-profits delivering steady, patient returns over very long time frames. Industry funds consistently outperform bank owned super funds. Yet, again, the ideology that keeps creeping into this debate is that you end up getting the banks, and those that support them, simply trying to legislate to give the banks an artificial advantage when it comes to competing.
In November 2014, the crossbench worked together to defeat one long line of the Abbott government's disasters, which was the FOFA laws we spoke about. What we're seeing now is another attempt, a later attempt, for us to deal with an unnecessary attack on industry superannuation. This year, 2017, marks 25 years since the introduction of compulsory superannuation in Australia. In 25 years the industry has grown to $2.3 trillion, and it's projected to grow to $4 trillion shortly. Industry super funds are a large part of the success of the growth of the Australian super industry fund. The question we have to ask is: what is the rush with this legislation? What is even the need for this legislation? It's diagnosing an illness that currently does not exist.
Take the independence and the power they want to give to APRA to decide who is independent. Australian capital markets and the business community enjoy high esteem. There is no shortcoming in the existing definition. The government has a preoccupation with the word 'independent', when it is really skill that serves the director. As former ACCC head Professor Graeme Samuel says, a director needs to be 'cognitively independent, with a dispassionate view, an objective view'. Former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser told the committee that skills and values are more important than independence.
And yet here we are again debating another piece of legislation that is a veiled swipe at an industry that does not need to have this. All of this comes back to a blatant refusal of what is really needed in this sector, and that is a full-blown royal commission into Australian banking. If we're going to start diagnosing the problems that exist in our financial services sector then we have to start looking at the big issues like the vertically integrated model, like the dodgy advice that has ripped people off time after time. I would urge the Senate to have a look at the work of the Senate Economics Committee, a committee that I chaired for a period and now is being chaired by Senator Ketter.
Senator Williams: We recommended a royal commission, and you wouldn't do it.
Senator DASTYARI: I will take that interjection from Senator Williams.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Order! Ignore the interjections.
Senator DASTYARI: Senator Williams makes an observation, and I want to acknowledge Senator Williams here. He's right: I had a committee recommendation to support a royal commission. I did not cross the floor on a vote that Senator Williams put before the Senate. Senator Williams did cross the floor. As he's well aware, our party structures are very different in what the consequences for that are. I felt at the time it was better to stay within the Labor Party and be an outspoken voice, which I was, and to change Labor Party policy on the issue, which I was able to achieve. I note that Senator Williams made a different decision and chose to cross the floor. I commended him for it at the time and I commend him again for it now. Hopefully he will have the same success I was able to have in changing his party's policy, so that they have a policy of supporting a royal commission into Australian banking, but the magnitude of what you did, Senator Williams, and how much you have spoken up on this issue for such a long period of time, deserves the respect and admiration of those perhaps younger senators in this chamber who haven't had the opportunity to have served as long as you have.
Labor senators are concerned that these bills, which claim to improve governance in the superannuation sector, are being rushed through the committee by this government. Equal representation on boards is a longstanding arrangement which has served Australians well, and we believe it's something that should be maintained. Funds that operate with an employer and employee representative board—the not-for-profit industry funds that are attacked by the Turnbull government—have significantly higher returns for members. You have to question what is it the minister has in mind when she said:
… lift superannuation funds to at least the same standard as other financial services organisations like banks and life insurance companies—
as she told the Fin Review on 23 November last year. Is the minister really referring the example set by a place like the Commonwealth Bank, which now has its own investigations into it for money-laundering, as what we should be doing? Or the bank bill swap rate culture at ANZ and Westpac, who, as I understand, have now all settled and accepted responsibility? I don't know if CommInsure at the Commonwealth Bank, Commonwealth Financial Planning and NAB financial planning are the standard that is going to be set. The real aim of this bill is to make the governance of superannuation funds the same as the banks, and I can't understand or comprehend why that would be an approach for a successful industry that, unlike the banking sector, has not been plagued by scandal. Why we would want to set a standard and an example by those that have? This isn't a bill that will raise the standard of governance in superannuation; it will lower the standard of governance to that of the banks and the problems that we see time and time again—problems that only a royal commission will ever properly get to the bottom of.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (13:23): I too rise to commend this government on both of these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017, although, after speaking first of all on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 this morning, it does almost seem like a bit of a let-down, talking about Treasury and superannuation—that is, until you realise just how important these bills actually are. In 2017 the superannuation system has grown exponentially. Today it is a system now worth around $2.3 trillion. That is $2.3 trillion of money from millions of hardworking Australian men and women who absolutely deserve to know that their money is being spent in a transparent and accountable manner and in a way that is always in their best interests to probably the highest possible standards of any governance regime.
I was grossly disappointed to hear the contribution just now from Senator Dastyari and to hear that Labor are not supporting this bill. I'm disappointed but, unfortunately, hardly surprised, listening to Senator Dastyari trying his best to shadow-box against big business and big banks, and pulling out all of these absolutely spurious reasons to avoid greater governance, accountability and transparency for millions of Australian superannuation holders. I find it somewhat ironic that he and those on the opposite side, who are the biggest defenders of big unions, in this place, in recent committee inquiries, have heard that the biggest offenders of all in terms of sticky fingers are the big unions who have gone into absolutely atrociously bad secret deals with big businesses to ensure that unions keep their sticky fingers on union members' fees. Under these deals they get the big businesses to make sure that their workers' only option is to sign up with union superannuation-related funds. These bills absolutely provide greater accountability and transparency in governance. That cannot possibly be a bad thing, despite Senator Dastyari's rather clever—actually, it wasn't even that clever—or heroic attempts to find some way of demonstrating how greater accountability for those who manage our superannuation funds could be. All I'd say is, 'Good try, Senator Dastyari, but I think that's a big, fat F.'
These bills do provide greater transparency and accountability. They are unashamedly focused to ensure that Australia's superannuation system delivers outcomes for its members above the vested interests of the industry and those who manage $2.3 trillion of Australians' money by introducing a stronger regulatory framework and by assuring that a portion of the directors of these funds are independent. Just think about that. Those opposite are arguing against having a board that has a portion of the directors as independent. It is frightening that anybody in this place would argue against having independent directors. I would hope that people listening and members of the public would actually get on to the Labor Party and actually say to them, 'What is wrong with ensuring those who manage my superannuation funds have the greatest possible transparency and accountability?' Having independent people on their boards who come from a range of sectors in the community brings diversity of thought and opinion and also, I might say, a diversity of gender, which I will come back and talk about shortly.
The first of these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, is a bit of a mouthful but an important bill. This bill provides comprehensive measures focused on protecting members' money and members' interests. It still just astounds me that anybody opposite could actually get up in this place and say, 'No, we don't believe in creating greater accountability and protections for you Australian mums and dads who have invested a lifetime of savings in your superannuation.' It's a package along with another suite of measures that has been developed with a very clear objective: to improve the outcome for Australian consumers of these products.
As the minister indicated in the second reading speech, this is what the bills will do:
… help deliver all Australians a strong and modern superannuation system with a stronger prudential regulator that is solely focused on delivering outcomes for all Australians who rely on these funds to secure their retirement.
It is pretty simple and pretty clear. Read the bill. That is clearly what it does. Yet we have Senator Dastyari coming into this chamber today to say, 'We don't support those principles. Opposition crossbenchers, go slow, don't think about these things.'
Senator Sterle: You sound just like him!
Senator REYNOLDS: Sorry. This bill achieves these objectives by also amending the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, and it does so through the following eight schedules. Again, I will actually read these schedules out because any objective observer, listener or reader of these could not help but to think: 'That's exactly what I want from my superannuation funds. That's exactly the sort of accountability and transparency I want for my superannuation funds.'
The first schedule amends the SIS Act to strengthen the obligation on super trustees to consider the appropriateness of their super products and how these products deliver appropriate outcomes to their individual members. What a terrible thing those opposite must think it is that there is actually greater governance for super trustees to consider the appropriateness of their packages for individual members, not for the unions who are associated with these superannuation funds but for the members themselves—outrageous, Labor!
What is the second outrageous proposition that we want to introduce for people with superannuation accounts? We actually want to give the regulator enhanced powers and capacity to enforce and regulate super funds. Yes, Labor, I can see how it is such a terrible principle to give the regulators greater powers to enforce and regulate these super funds.
Let's have a look at the third schedule that Labor thinks is so dreadful. Schedule 3 reinforces the purpose that the funds must always deliver for their members through appropriate, transparent and accountable means by imposing both civil and criminal penalties. Labor, I can really understand why you don't want that to happen for the millions of Australian superannuation holders. How disgusting that we actually want to make sure that superannuation funds deliver for their members by more transparent and accountable means. Shocking! I can see why you're not supporting it.
What do the Labor Party think about schedules 4 and 5? Well, let's have a look: sections 4 and 5 strengthen the regulator's supervision and enforcement powers specifically to include the power to issue directions when a change of ownership or control of registered superannuable superannuation-entity licences take place and when the regulator has prudential concerns. That is a lot of gobbledegook to most of us, including myself, probably; however, it just means greater powers and ability to make sure that those who have their fingers on your superannuation account do the right thing.
The Labor Party clearly have concerns about those four things. What else do they have concerns about? They have concerns about schedule 6, which amends the Corporations Act to include requirements for portfolio holdings to be made publicly available. Oh, dear. Labor don't want these accounts and these portfolio holdings to be made public and to be held accountable so that people with these funds can actually see—goodness me!—who's involved in their superannuation funds. Dearie me!
Schedule 7 refers to funds to hold annual general meetings for members to discuss key aspects of the funds and provide members with a forum to ask any questions in relation to the fund's performance and operations. I can see why the Labor Party don't want this. Just imagine members of superannuation funds actually having the opportunity every year, like shareholders of other companies, to hold those who hold their money in their trust accountable and transparent. Shocking!
What is the final schedule that the Labor Party is so opposed to? Schedule 8 relates to reporting standards and provides the regulator with the power to inspect and obtain information on expenses incurred by the funds. Oh, dearie me; I can see why Labor doesn't support this either. How terrible to have those who have their fingers all over our superannuation having a regulator to inspect and obtain information about expenses incurred by the funds. That translates to the people who manage your accounts actually being accountable for the parts of your money they are spending on themselves. I can understand why the Labor Party and the unions would certainly not want this.
I commend the government on all eight of the provisions in the schedules, because, unlike those opposite, we think there should be greater accountability and greater transparency for every single Australian who has a superannuation fund to know what those who are managing their funds are doing with their funds.
What does industry say about this thing that the Labor Party finds so objectionable? The Financial Services Council stated:
… the reforms are a cohesive package and are designed to deliver better outcomes for consumers.
Oh, dear! 'Better outcomes for consumers'. The Financial Services Council said:
We urge the Senate to pass the package of reforms as they are clearly designed to act cohesively, put the interests of consumers first and apply evenly without fear or favour across the entire superannuation industry.
I have to say, Mr Acting Deputy President, those on this side of the chamber could not agree more—that this is essential legislation.
So what have Industry Super Australia said about this? They've also provided their support and, in a media release on 24 July, stated that they would welcome the emphasis on transparency and accountability and that they would also urge the regulator to use powers to investigate the cause of bank-owned super funds' chronic underperformance. So, contrary to all of the shadow-boxing that Senator Dastyari has just attempted to do in this chamber on this legislation, Industry Super Australia themselves have said, 'This is a good thing.' Not only is it a good thing, they're not shadow-boxing at some big industry or big banks; they have said it will allow the regulator to use powers to investigate the cause of bank-owned super funds' chronic underperformance. Again, we on this side of the chamber think that is a uniformly good thing.
Even a senior ASIC executive leader indicated that ASIC was supportive of initiatives that enhanced transparency for members and that the disclosure of information for consumers will allow them to make better and more informed decisions. How those opposite could think that is, in any way, not a good thing for all working Australians looking to save for their retirement, I still cannot understand.
The second bill being debated here is the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017. This bill further reaffirms this government's commitment to the appropriate, transparent and accountable management of Australian workers' superannuation funds. The Cooper review—now, this is actually very interesting because this was a Labor-initiated review by the Gillard government, as I understand. So this is not a review commissioned by those on this side of the chamber. This was your own review. The Cooper review into superannuation—again, as I said, which was initiated by those opposite—had some very interesting things to say. The Cooper review's report stated that governance structures had not kept up with development of the industry and that there had been difficulty for trustees and their trustee directors in understanding what was expected of them. Think about the implications of that. This is saying that those men and women, the trustees and their trustee directors, are having trouble in understanding the governance requirements for them managing all of our superannuation funds. If that doesn't keep Australians awake at night, I don't know what should. So that was the Labor Party review and report that said that.
What else did the Labor review have to say? It also said that governance structures had not kept up with developments in the industry and that there had been difficulties for their trustees in understanding what was required under these new arrangements. While Labor did not implement measures that would put tighter governance and transparency requirements over trade union superannuation managed funds, this side of the house, this government, is doing it. This bill addresses that by legislating for the definition of 'independent' and provides a clear governance structure which many key industry stakeholders have supported.
One of the things that I particularly like about this bill is that it will implement new board governance structures in addition to mandating that at least one-third of trustee directors and the chair be independent from the superannuation funds. I think most Australians would probably be incredibly shocked to learn the composition of some of the boards that actually manage their retirement income. What did the Labor Party's review say about this measure we're now proposing? Guess what: the Cooper review actually endorsed mandating this very requirement. Again, this bill addresses many of the Cooper review's reforms that the Labor Party, because of their union ties, simply would never implement. What utter hypocrisy that is—but, again, as I said, it's hardly surprising.
Some of the industry funds who are members of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors have no shame when they threaten to wield their enormous economic power as active shareholders against public companies with a poor record of gender diversity on their boards. These guidelines stated in February in 2015: 'ACSI proposes a target for women comprising 30 per cent of all ASX 200 boards by the end of this year.' Additionally, they also recommended to vote against the re-election of directors in those companies which performed poorly on board gender diversity where attempts by them to engage at senior levels had been ignored and/or the board could not articulate a clear strategy to address gender diversity in the near term. They've also announced that they will recommend their members vote against the re-election of company directors who sit on boards with no members.
Guess what? What do you think the situation is on the boards of our superannuation funds? Before they start moralising about other companies—and more gender diversity and more diversity generally is a uniformly good thing—some of these superannuation funds should look to practise what they preach. There are three industry superannuation funds that have no women on their boards whatsoever—not a single one. Guess what? ACSI and TWUSUPER both have no women on their boards despite women making up 62 per cent of their total accounts as of June last year. There are others. The Australian Meat Industry Employees' Superannuation Fund and NESS Super also have not a single woman on their boards. As at July 2017, there were five further funds where women made up less than one-fifth of their boards. These funds were Maritime Super, REST Industry Super, Prime Super, Intrust Super and Cbus. The REST board was only 11 per cent female, despite 60 per cent of its accounts belonging to women as of June last year. Intrust was in a similar position, with female directors making up only 17 per cent of its board despite women making up 54 per cent of its accounts.
It is unfathomable that funds representing a majority female membership do not have a single female on their boards of directors. Clearly, these union blokes think they still know what's best for their female members. The same unions that dominate these super funds are the same unions that are religiously and continuously supported by those opposite, including in their opposition to this bill which their own Cooper review recommended and which this government is now implementing. Every single Australian working man and woman who is saving for their retirement deserves the highest possible transparency, governance and assurance that those sticky fingers, supported by those opposite, aren't on their superannuation funds. So it is for all those reasons that I commend the government on these bills and commend them to the Senate.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:43): The Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 seek to fundamentally alter the governance arrangements that have been in place for superannuation since it was first put in place by a Labor government. The legislation does that by requiring that registrable superannuation licensees have at least one-third so-called independent directors and that the chair of the board also be one of those independent directors. It also abolishes any requirement that the remaining directors comprise 50 per cent employers and 50 per cent representatives of the workers who are members of that fund. In doing that, it creates the possibility that a board could be entirely controlled by these independent directors and employers only.
This is a profound intervention into the Australian superannuation system, and what is particularly troubling is that there is absolutely no justification provided for why this is occurring. Normally in public policy we ask, 'What problem are we trying to solve?' Where is the problem here? For all of the previous speaker's references to sticky fingers and scary ideas, I challenge people to identify a significant national scandal involving an industry super fund. I challenge them to do so, and I then ask them to think carefully about the scandals—scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal—that have plagued the retail banking sector. And I ask: why is it that before the parliament now is this bill and not a bill that goes to the problems in the banking sector and not a bill that would establish a royal commission so that we could finally get to the bottom of these problems? In the absence of any clear description of what problem we're trying to solve, I can only conclude one thing: this is just one more intervention by a government that is absolutely determined to use the power of the state, the power of government, to go after its political opponents.
The history of super is this: people on the other side of the chamber have always hated it. They hated the idea that ordinary working people might get access to super—which was, historically, a privilege afforded only to very-highly-paid white-collar workers. They hated the idea that workers might take their admittedly small pool of individual savings and put them together so that they could compete in the investment market on even ground with the big investors—the people with a lot of money. They hate it. They really hate that the boards of superannuation firms are made up of representatives of workers—because that's really what this bill is all about: it is about stopping ordinary working people and their representatives from managing their own money. It's actually pretty clear. It is about taking away positions on existing boards that are presently occupied by truck drivers and nurses and retail workers and handing them to individuals drawn from the finance sector. Doing that is, in the first instance, a deeply unethical use of the power of government. It is simply about going after one's political opponents using the resources of government, rather than acting in the public interest. That is very, very wrong.
But, sadly, it's a set of behaviours that we've seen more and more from this government as it becomes more and more unhinged and more and more preoccupied with its own problems. We need only look to the events of the last couple of weeks, when the Registered Organisations Commission was utilised to launch a raid on the AWU, principally for the purposes of going after the Leader of the Opposition and utilising all the resources of government to do so. This is not proper use of government resources. It's not proper use of the power of government. It is not actually consistent with a commitment to democratic norms, and people ought to be very, very worried about the way this government is behaving.
To go back to the bill before us: this bill seeks to replace the current model of the representation of workers and employers on superannuation boards. Where will these independent directors come from? Well, they'll come from the finance sector—that's very clear. What this effectively means is that this is a bill that seeks to replace the current model of governance with one that looks a lot more like the culture that is present in banking.
Speakers from the coalition here in the chamber have spoken about the virtues of independence. Well, independent directors are very important for listed companies, for corporations, and the main criteria for an independent director in that environment is that they be independent of management. The reason that we want an independent director on a company board is that, in the past, there have been problems with executive directors—people drawing a salary from the company—who've manipulated processes of corporations to support their own needs as employees, their own salaries and their own perks, instead of delivering for shareholders. That's a real dynamic. That's not a feature of industry super organisations. So the question really is: independent from what?
What they really mean is independent from workers' representation.
Senator Williams interjecting—
Senator McALLISTER: The interjection is 'independent from unions'. I ask the question: why is it that those opposite are so obsessed with preventing working people from organising themselves into a group and having representation at the top table? Why shouldn't they be represented in the parliament? Why shouldn't they be represented in the boardroom? Is it only the children of very wealthy people who ought to be represented in those places? No, it's not. Of course working people should be able to organise themselves and of course they should be in a position to influence control of their own money and their own savings. Superannuation isn't a gift from employers. It's wages—wages that would have been paid to those people, but, instead, workers agreed to have that money put into retirement savings. A condition of that agreement is that they would get to control that money.
Perhaps, the government might argue, there's some problem with the performance of those superannuation funds where workers and employers manage their money. Well, that's just not true. The not-for-profit funds, with the boards that generally contain a majority of representative directors, haven't had scandals and they have out-performed the for-profit funds, including the bank funds, by almost two per cent every year from June 2003 to June 2014. There is actually a link between this model of governance, with employers and workers sitting around the board together, and very good performance in terms of investment. It's worth thinking through why that is.
I put it to you that, actually, people drawn from the real economy make better investment decisions. There are a group of people living in the finance sector who are largely pretty disassociated from the real economy. They are themselves quite wealthy people and they mix with other people who also work in the finance sector. There's actually something very powerful about having a board made up of employers from the real economy and the workers who work there. It makes a real difference in how people approach investment decisions. I think that same composition generates a culture where people are willing to challenge norms that might be accepted norms in the finance sector and are willing to say: 'Hey, why is it that we clip the ticket on this particular transaction? Why is it that we allow a commission that's this generous or has a margin this generous on this particular service?' These people are used to managing their own money; they treat it like it's their own.
It goes to the third question. These organisations don't have shareholders; they don't have banking investors waiting for their payout at the end of the year. These are not-for-profit funds that have the ethos that any earnings produced by the funds should go back to members. It's a members-first ethos driven by the representative nature of these boards, and it has produced very, very good results. Why would we disrupt and interrupt that model? These same boards have played a significant role in building the assets in the Australian economy. This is patient capital. This is money that can sit in an asset for a long time. These are pools of funds that are quite stable, and one of the great innovations of the industry super sector is that it's been able to use that money to invest in Australian infrastructure, and it's produced very important outcomes for our country in terms of capital formation. Again, why are we trying to intervene in this particular model when it is doing so well and yet the banking sector, which they're trying to replace the industry model with, is having so many difficulties? What is the real objective here? I go back to my original conclusion. This is not about improving governance in the superannuation sector. This is not about improving outcomes for ordinary people who have their money invested in these superannuation funds. This is simply an ideological obsession with eliminating the role of trade unions from public life in this country. It is about an ideological hostility to working people organising collectively and being recognised and represented. It is a completely unacceptable basis on which to make a substantial intervention into a trillion-dollar industry. It is a completely appalling way to proceed, and I encourage all senators who may be listening to this debate and considering their position on the legislation to vote against the bill that's before us.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (13:55): I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this important package of reforms being introduced by the government to Australia's superannuation system. I think at the outset it's really important to remember that superannuation is different. It's not like any other sector. It's not like any other financial instrument. It's not like any other financial asset that most Australians hold. It's different because it's compulsory. We here in Canberra, in this place, force all Australian workers to put aside a proportion of their income for their retirement, and we tell them they must invest it in a superannuation fund that they cannot access until a certain age. I'm not questioning the merits of that. I think it's a very sensible way to ensure that we have adequate retirement income for Australians and that not all Australians are reliant on the pension in the future. I think that's a very sensible thing. But, because it's different, I think it requires a greater level of scrutiny, oversight and regulation than a normal industry or business would, because often, in those industries and those businesses, people's interactions with them are purely voluntary. If a customer doesn't like their bank, they can stop banking with that bank. If a customer doesn't like their milk bar, they can go to another milk bar. But we force them, whether they like it or not, to have their funds in superannuation, and that demands a much higher standard of scrutiny and regulation than any other industry.
Yet a very significant proportion of this industry, the industry super fund portion of the superannuation industry, is in fact regulated even less and even more lightly than most other financial products, financial businesses and financial assets. So we have a bizarre situation where something which really should demand a higher level of scrutiny and regulation in fact receives a lower level of scrutiny and regulation. This is something that those opposite, in the Labor Party, would never normally tolerate. Can you imagine them coming to this place to defend unregulated financial assets? I would find it very hard to believe, and yet they do. I wonder why that is. I wonder why on this issue it's different.
Before I run out of time I want to take up one point in Senator McAllister's speech. She particularly focused on the independent directors aspects of this legislation. These bills—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017—do a number of things which perhaps in continuation later I can address. But I'm addressing this issue. Senator McAllister set a challenge for those opposite her: to mention one scandal or one issue which demonstrated that this is necessary. I'm very happy to do so, and in order to do so I'm going to quote an article from the Financial Review published on 18 March last year. It's entitled 'Former Cbus employees escape jail', and it's by Lucille Keen:
Two former Cbus employees have been given suspended jail sentences after pleading guilty to giving false and misleading evidence to the trade union Royal Commission.
In 2014, Maria Butera and Lisa Zanatta appeared before the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption under Dyson Heydon over claims the former superannuation advisors gave the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union names and personal details of more than 300 members.
In November, Ms Butera was charged with counts of giving false and misleading evidence and Ms Zanatta faced two counts of the same offence.
The indictable offence carried a maximum penalty of five years' jail or a $20,000 fine.
Why would employees of Cbus want to give the private superannuation details of their members to a union like the CFMEU? What could possibly enter their minds that would cause them to do that? Maybe one of the factors that entered their minds was the CFMEU's effective control of the superannuation fund which employed them. Maybe they were influenced by the fact that half of the board were representatives and appointees of the CFMEU.
Senator McAllister said that it's important that we have boards that are representative of workers. I think that's true. But it is not true to say that unions represent workers. Unions represent about 10 per cent of private sector workers, and yet they have 50 per cent of the positions on industry super boards. It is totally out of whack. It is totally out of balance. It needs to change, and this is a very sensible package of reforms to deliver that. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Debate interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Attorney-General
Qualifications of Senators
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:00): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Earlier this month, when asked whether he had rendered Ms Hollie Hughes ineligible to be elected as a senator by appointing her to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Attorney-General replied: 'No.' Given the High Court's decision yesterday, how many times has the Turnbull government's first law officer now got it wrong?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): For reasons that I'm sure you will understand, it is not my practice to comment on decisions of the High Court which I have not read. Senator Collins, you may or may not be aware that the High Court has not published its reasons for judgement, so I won't be commenting on the reasons for judgement of the court which have not yet been published.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, a supplementary question.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator Collins is on her feet.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:01): My question was: how many times now has the chief law officer got it wrong? What communication did the Attorney-General or his office have with Ms Hughes about her constitutional eligibility to sit in the Senate following Senator Nash's referral to the High Court and the subsequent court decision?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:02): I don't comment on private conversations with colleagues.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: Conversations I have with colleagues are private conversations, Senator Collins. Ms Hughes took legal advice from those retained, as I understand, by the New South Wales Liberal Party. My advice came from those retained to act on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia—namely, the Solicitor-General.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, a final supplementary question.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:02): Is the first law officer of Australia as confident about the eligibility of the rest of the New South Wales coalition Senate ticket as he was about Ms Hughes?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:02): Let me see this fine body of men and women. I'm extremely confident about Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I'm extremely confident about Senator Payne. Who else do we have here representing the coalition? I'm extremely confident about Senator John—
The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Cameron?
Senator Cameron: Yes, on relevance. The question went directly to the ticket that the High Court is now going through, one by one.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis was being directly relevant, given that at the last election all senators were up for election.
Senator BRANDIS: As for Senator John 'Wacka' Williams, I'm extremely confident about him. In fact, I'm extremely confident about all of my colleagues.
Energy
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:03): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, in his capacity representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister update the Senate on how the coalition government's National Energy Guarantee will deliver more affordable and more reliable energy to Australian families and businesses, particularly in our great home state of Queensland?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): I thank Senator Barry O'Sullivan for that very important question. Senator O'Sullivan, the Turnbull government has taken action right across the board that has already seen benefits for Australian consumers, particularly for those in Queensland. On networks, we've abolished the limited merits review to stop energy network companies gaming the system. We've secured an agreement with the domestic gas producers which has seen the spot gas price reduce and more gas put onto the domestic market. Our National Energy Guarantee will also bring down wholesale prices by 20 per cent to 25 per cent, which could be a saving of around $5 million for an energy-intensive industrial user.
Senator O'Sullivan, you and I know that the Palaszczuk Labor government in Queensland has been ripping off energy users in our home state by dragging money out of their energy network systems and abusing the processes. The coalition government is determined to put the interests of all Queenslanders and Australians first when it comes to energy policy. Tim Nicholls and his LNP team are also committed to more affordable and reliable energy for Queenslanders. The LNP in Queensland will end Labor's secret tax on electricity and save a typical Queensland family, on average, $160 per year on their power bill. By 2020, savings will increase to around $300 a year on average. That's $300 a year less on the electricity bill for an average Queensland household thanks to Tim Nicholls and his LNP team. Working with Tim Nicholls and the LNP in Queensland, we will deliver a real difference to Queensland electricity budgets and power prices.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:06): It was disappointing then to see Senator Watt support the gouging by the Queensland Labor government. Maybe he'll find the time to condemn it. Attorney, can you outline the benefits of competition in Queensland's energy market?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): Yes, Senator O'Sullivan, I can. The former Queensland Labor government merged three generation companies into two and the Palaszczuk government wanted to take this further by merging them down into one. This is what the chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, said about that policy of the Palaszczuk Labor government and the further generation concentration:
It is a great worry.
They … turned Queensland from one of the most competitive generation sectors to the least.
That's what Rod Sims, the chairman of the ACCC, said about the Queensland Labor government's power policy.
Since the Labor government caved in and gave a direction to one of its state-owned generators, Stanwell, we saw an immediate 20 per cent reduction in prices, which begs the question of why the Palaszczuk government hasn't reined in its other 800-pound gorilla of a state-owned generator. That's why Queenslanders should welcome the LNP's commitment to unwind Labor's merger of electricity generation assets. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:07): It was good to see Senator Watt sit quietly through that one. Obviously, he didn't have anything to contribute. Is the Attorney-General aware of any impediments to delivering affordable electricity to Queenslanders?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:08): Yes, Senator O'Sullivan. Under the Palaszczuk Labor government, Queenslanders were paying the highest wholesale prices in the first half of this year—30 per cent above the National Electricity Market average. That's because Queensland Labor have mismanaged the electricity system, imposing higher costs on families and businesses. They have, as Mr Sims and the ACCC concluded, threatened the competitiveness of Queensland with poorly considered, ideologically driven renewable energy targets. We've seen this in South Australia, we see it coming in Victoria, and Labor want to bring it into Queensland—force-feeding intermittent generation into the system without regard to costs, system reliability or investment certainty. One big difference between the LNP and the Palaszczuk Labor government: lower electricity prices under Tim Nicholls.
Multiculturalism
Senator KETTER (Queensland) (14:09): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Prime Minister's commitment to a multicultural Australia in which racism and discrimination have no place. I also refer to One Nation's policy to abolish multiculturalism, which it describes as 'negative and divisive, a weight that is drowning our once safe and cohesive society'. Does Senator Hanson's policy align with the government's commitment to a multicultural Australia?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): You know it doesn't, Senator Ketter. I'm disappointed in you for asking that question. You know it doesn't, and you know my views of Senator Hanson's attitude to multicultural Australia. You know that perfectly well. The Turnbull government is absolutely committed—as is the Liberal Party, as is the National Party, as is the LNP—to a multicultural Australia in which all cultures, all faiths and all walks of life are treated with dignity and respect. That is a core value of the Turnbull government. It always has been and always will be.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ketter, a supplementary question?
Senator KETTER (Queensland) (14:10): I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. In light of the Prime Minister's statement, has the Prime Minister raised concerns about One Nation's policy to abolish multiculturalism with LNP leader Mr Nicholls following his decision to preference One Nation in no less than 49 seats in the forthcoming Queensland election?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): Senator Ketter, that is just not true. That is just not true. If you'd been listening to my friend Senator Macdonald in the take note debate yesterday, you would know that the LNP has made no preference deals whatsoever with One Nation. No preference deals with One Nation, no coalition, no shared ministry—none whatsoever.
Meanwhile, Senator Ketter, you sit in a caucus with colleagues who were elected to this parliament on One Nation preferences. I remember being a scrutineer in the seat of Herbert last year when the member for Herbert, Cathy O'Toole, was returned to the House of Representatives on the back of One Nation preferences. And she wasn't the only one.
The people of Queensland have a clear choice at the Queensland election between the incompetent Palaszczuk Labor government and Tim Nicholls's LNP.
Senator Wong: Forty-nine seats!
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Ketter, we'll wait until there's silence. Senator Ketter, a final supplementary question.
Senator KETTER (Queensland) (14:12): I thank the Attorney-General again. I also refer to this minister's own previous statement in this chamber that Senator Hanson's ridicule of the Islamic community was 'an appalling thing to do'. In light of his condemnation, has this minister raised any concerns at all with the Queensland LNP leader about his decision to preference One Nation in the upcoming state election? If not, why not?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): Senator Ketter, you keep saying this and it's just not true. It is just not true. There has been no decision to do any deal. In fact, there has been a decision to do no deals with One Nation. No deals, no coalitions, no joint ministries—none.
Meanwhile, Senator Ketter, if you'd heard Senator Macdonald's very eloquent contribution to the debate yesterday afternoon, it would have been pointed out to you by Senator Macdonald that the Queensland Council of Unions and various other trade unions who are your backers and financiers are running a campaign in North Queensland as we speak to put the LNP last—in other words, to preference One Nation ahead of the LNP. So if you want to know who is talking out of both sides of their mouth on this, Senator Ketter, just look in the mirror because it's the ALP that is playing a double game on the question of One Nation preferences.
Adani Carmichael Coalmine
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:13): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Minister, as climate change talks commenced in Bonn, a report released this week shows that global carbon emissions have risen in 2017 by two per cent on 2016 levels. It's a frightening development that threatens us and future generations. If that wasn't bad enough, diplomatic channels are now being used to try to secure funding for the jobs-destroying, reef-bleaching Adani project from China's National Development and Reform Commission.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Di Natale, I think you may have addressed your question to the wrong minister.
Senator DI NATALE: It's coming. If you wait, you'd actually—
The PRESIDENT: You addressed the question to Senator Cash, representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Senator Cash does not represent the minister for trade, I understand.
Senator DI NATALE: Who's representing the minister for trade at the moment?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis. Would you commence the question again, so Senator Brandis can hear it.
Senator DI NATALE: Apologies. My question is for the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Minister, climate change talks commenced in Bonn. We now know that global carbon emissions have risen in 2017 by two per cent. If that's not bad enough, the government's using diplomatic channels to try to secure funding for the jobs-destroying, reef-bleaching Adani project from China's National Development and Reform Commission. Did Mr Adani request that we seek funding from the Chinese government for that mine or was it done through the minister's own initiative?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:15): Senator Di Natale, I am not aware of what passed between Minister Ciobo or Australian ministers and Mr Adani, but what I can tell you, since you raised the subject of the Adani mine, is that the Australian government—and, for that matter, the LNP opposition in Queensland—is very committed to the development of the Adani mine because the Adani mine, on various estimates, is worth more than 10,000 full-time jobs to people in Central and Northern Queensland. If you want to find a point of difference between the two parties in the Queensland election on 25 November, you can't find a clearer point of difference than in their attitude to jobs. And you can't find anything more emblematic of those different attitudes to jobs than the fact that the LNP, led by Tim Nicholls, supports the Adani mine and the ALP, led by Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk, does not. In fact, Senator Di Natale, you may have noticed that there was a U-turn, a 180-degree turn, by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in the first week of the Queensland election campaign, when she turned around from her declared support of the Adani mine to saying that she would block the possibility of NAIF funding for the Adani mine.
So I'm glad you asked me about it, Senator Di Natale. I can tell you that, if there were to be an LNP government elected in Queensland, we will give every encouragement to the Adani mine because it is the right thing to open up the Galilee Basin, it's the right thing to build those rail lines and it's the right thing to bring 10,000 new jobs to Central and North Queensland—and only the LNP will do it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:17): Thank you, Minister, for confirming that the government's got the begging bowl out for the Chinese government and it's now acting as a middleman trying to find anyone reckless enough to finance this loss-making disaster. Can you, Minister, advise whether you have approached any other state owned enterprises or whether, indeed, there has been any interest in funding this mine that came out of September's strategic economic dialogue?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:18): Senator Di Natale, I'm not aware—when you say 'state owned enterprise', do you mean a Chinese state owned enterprise or any state owned enterprise?
Senator Di Natale: Any state owned.
Senator BRANDIS: I'm not aware that there has been an approach, but I am aware of this: there has been an approach by Adani to an Australian government agency—that is, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF—which is now being blocked by the Annastacia Palaszczuk. Under the terms of NAIF funding, it requires the support of the state government, and, in the first week of the Queensland election campaign, what did Annastacia Palaszczuk do? She pulled the rug out from under Adani's application for the northern Australia infrastructure funding and, in doing so, she stabbed in the back the 10,000 Central Queenslanders and North Queenslanders who stood to get a full-time job out of that project.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:19): Minister, the letter to the Chinese government says the Adani coalmine will be 'a major contributor to the environmental aspirations of the Asia-Pacific region'. Minister, why is the government ignoring our Pacific island neighbours, who actually are in our region, whose islands are shrinking underwater and who have also made it clear at Bonn that they stand with the Queensland community and with the Greens in opposing that climate-destroying, reef-killing coalmine?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:19): Senator Di Natale, I know that there are different views about the desirability of developing the Adani mine. I always thought you knew more about the environment than I did, but you don't seem to be acknowledging that the thermal coal in the Galilee Basin in Queensland is the lowest-emissions coal that is winnable virtually anywhere in the world. If India's demand for coal is not met by the low-emissions thermal coal available from the Galilee Basin, it will be sourced from higher-emissions coal in Indonesia and South-East Asia and from other sources. Senator Di Natale, I tell you what there is no division of opinion about on my side of politics, and that is the desirability of sourcing India's coal supply from a low-emissions coal source, thermal coal, not just for environmental reasons but also for restoring economic prosperity to Central Queensland and North Queensland with the 10,000 new full-time jobs that that project will create. (Time expired)
Hadgkiss, Mr Nigel
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. The former commissioner of the Australian Building and Construction Commission resigned on 13 September after admitting he had recklessly breached the law, despite 12 months of costly litigation in defence of his illegal behaviour. Can the minister confirm that Mr Hadgkiss received an additional two-week period of notice of over $16,000? If so, who approved the additional two weeks pay?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:21): I thank Senator Cameron for the question. You are correct, Senator Cameron: the government accepted Mr Hadgkiss's registration on 13 September 2017 and it took effect on 27 September 2017. He was, therefore, paid between the period of the resignation—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Farrell?
Senator Farrell: I have a point of order. It's just not clear what the minister said. Did she say 'resignation' or 'registration'? Could we please clarify?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cash was relevant to the question. That wasn't technically a point of order.
Senator CASH: The resignation took effect on 27 September. He, therefore, would have been paid up until 27 September.
The PRESIDENT: Have you completed your answer, Senator Cash?
Senator Cameron: I asked: who approved the pay?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, take your seat. I am clarifying what's happening. Senator Cash, have you concluded your answer?
Senator CASH: I have.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, do you have a supplementary question?
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:22): Yes, I have a supplementary question. The minister told the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee that Mr Hadgkiss did not seek assistance for any penalty. Given the additional $16,000 that covered the penalty of $8,500, isn't it clear that the taxpayer picked up the tab for Mr Hadgkiss's penalty? Who approved the payment?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:23): I absolutely reject the premise of your question. I have made it very clear in a number of estimates hearings that Mr Hadgkiss was not given any indemnity, nor did he request one, in relation to any penalty.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:23): We just can't get answers out of this minister. Given the disgraced Mr Hadgkiss only admitted to recklessly breaching the law after 12 months of costly and unnecessary litigation at taxpayers' expense, why was Mr Hadgkiss allowed to profit from breaking the law? Is it because he's a Liberal mate?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:24): Senator Cameron, I fundamentally reject the premise of your question. In relation to who approved the payment, Mr Hadgkiss was paid in accordance with normal procedures. Given that, Senator Cameron, you have raised the issue of the CFMEU, I can take the Senate yet again through the fact that in relation to—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron?
Senator Cameron: This is the third question I have asked. This is on relevance. This is the third question and this minister has not gone near to answer any one of the questions. She should at least be drawn to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, both of your questions had preambles and the senator was directly addressing that. I cannot direct the minister how to answer a question.
Senator CASH: I have to say, it would be nice if one day Senator Cameron came into this Senate with as much venom as he has towards the Australian Building and Construction Commission, who ensure that law and order is maintained in the building and construction industry, and actually condemned members of the CFMEU, who are nothing more and nothing less than thugs who have convictions in courts—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cameron.
Senator Cameron: This minister has not answered any of the three questions I have asked. On relevance, why was Mr Hadgkiss allowed to profit from breaking the law?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, you do not get to restate your question. I draw the minister's attention to the question. The minister is allowed to challenge the premise of a question.
Senator CASH: As I was saying, numerous CFMEU officials have time and time again broken the law, and you can see, again, those on the other side merely run a protection racket for them.
Adani Carmichael Coalmine
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Minister, as you are aware, my stance on the yet to be constructed Adani rail line is that it should be built and funded by both Queensland and Australian governments based on the billions of dollars profit it will generate for many years to come. Queensland's Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk until recently supported the rail being built by Adani and being partially funded by Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for approximately $1 billion. Do you believe the Premier's reluctance to support the loan now is due to conflict of interest regarding her partner or has she used this as a political tool to get Greens preferences, regardless of the thousands of jobs that will be lost in Queensland?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: Point of order. I ask you to consider whether that question is in order. It is asking for an opinion, clearly, 'Do you believe?' and it is asking for an opinion about what is in the mind of the state Premier.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Brandis.
Senator Brandis: Senator Canavan is the minister for northern Australia. This goes directly, directly, to the circumstances in which a decision may or may not be made which will bear upon the operation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the development of a major project, creating up to 10,000 jobs in northern Australia.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Wong. You get precedence over Senator Cameron, if you wish. Senator Cameron.
Senator Cameron: This is on this issue. Senator Brandis indicated that this is in order. It's not in order to ask for opinions. The minister can have no idea what's in people's minds.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, it was a lengthy question and there were a number of questions contained within it. Ministers are well aware of the restrictions upon questions and the minister is entitled to answer as to government intentions and government policy. Senator Wong, on the point of order.
Senator Wong: We accept your ruling. I ask you, Mr President, if you would review the Hansard after question time. There were a lot of words but the only question that was actually asked was a question of opinion of this minister about what was in the mind of the Premier, and that cannot, in my submission, be in order.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I will do that. On other occasions, when a senator has not got to a question before the end of the allotted time, we have allowed a minister to answer the preface to the question.
Senator Wong: I'm making a different point.
The PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I will look at the Hansard. The minister is aware of the restrictions upon what questions can be asked.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:29): I thank Senator Hanson for that very important question on a very important project.
I can understand the Labor Party's reluctance to have this issue discussed at all this week in this place. It is only the most important job-creating project in the State of Queensland and certainly for North Queensland. But I will make a prediction. I predict this: we're only how far? We're half an hour from the end of question time this week, and I don't think the Labor Party will ask one question this week about jobs in Queensland. Not one question about the most important job-creating project in Queensland at the moment! Not one question about what they want to do to help create jobs in Queensland! That's because they're running to hide. They're hiding from the embarrassment that is the Queensland government right now when it comes to creating jobs in Queensland. So, I welcome Senator Hanson's question about this important project. I acknowledge that we both support it and want to see the Galilee Basin opened up.
I thought that until a few weeks ago the Queensland Labor government were on side too—and I want them to be on side. I want important nation-building projects in this country to be bipartisan. We should be able to work together to create these kinds of opportunities and jobs. I thought they did, because a few months ago or early last year the Queensland government wrote to the federal government, saying that we should look to use NAIF funds—the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility funds—to fund the Galilee Basin rail line. That's what they said. Behind the scenes they were encouraging Adani. They were saying: 'Please apply to the NAIF. Don't apply here to us; go down to Canberra and get the funds there.' And then they led Adani and the people of North Queensland down the garden path.
Then, a few weeks ago, the Premier came out and said that she had to veto and oppose this project. That was an act of betrayal against the interests of jobseekers in North Queensland. And, worse, she used an excuse that didn't even stack up—didn't even subject it to closer scrutiny. It was not even correct and she tried to mislead and misconstrue it to the Queensland people.
The PRESIDENT: A supplementary question, Senator Hanson.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (14:31): Hence, my question is: will the lack of funding for the railway line jeopardise the Adani mine going ahead, and the loss of jobs and royalties along with it to Queensland?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:32): I cannot answer that question precisely. I do very much hope that this project withstands the chopping and changing of policy positions from the Queensland Labor government. But, of course, we're trying to attract billions of dollars of investment to this country and that requires governments that have a certain level of consistency and longstanding support for a job-creating project. You cannot chop and change your position to a company that wants to invest billions of dollars and expect it to have no impact at all.
What is worse, as I was saying, the Premier tried to claim that she had to veto this project because of the conflict of interest with her partner. But then it was revealed what the advice to her about this perceived conflict of interest was from the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner said that her preferred option was for the Premier to declare a conflict of interest to the CBRC and to, 'Exclude yourself from decisions'. She acted directly against that advice and directly against the interests of the Queensland people.
The PRESIDENT: A final supplementary question, Senator Hanson?
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (14:33): One Nation does support the mine and One Nation does support the rail line, but it should be owned by the people of Australia. So, if One Nation gains the balance of power in Queensland, will you work with the Queensland government to provide funds to the people of Queensland to build and own the line?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:33): The first point to make is that that is a hypothetical question, Senator Hanson. Under the terms of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—
Senator Wong: Mr President—
Senator CANAVAN: I'm not making a point of order, Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: No, I'm making the point of order!
Senator CANAVAN: Well, go for it!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Senator Wong: Mr President, my point of order is that if it's a hypothetical question it's clearly outside of the standing orders.
The PRESIDENT: I didn't hear the question as being hypothetical. The minister's answer is in order.
Senator CANAVAN: Under the terms of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which this parliament approved last year, loans can be provided to projects but equity cannot, Senator Hanson. The proposal before the NAIF that was, as I said, applied for by the Queensland government and that was encouraged by the Queensland government is for a loan to help open up this investment.
Now, we can reasonably disagree about how this should happen, but I just want to see the jobs happen. I just want to see this opportunity come to North Queenslanders. Now that we're so close to making this happen, it has been threatened and put at risk by the actions of the Queensland Labor Party. The Premier of Queensland has admitted that she has a conflict with the creation of jobs in North Queensland. I would suggest to the Queensland people that there is one easy way to remove that conflict of interest and that is to remove the Queensland Premier! If we remove the Queensland Premier, the conflict of interest against jobs is gone and we can get on with it, create these jobs and create economic opportunity in North Queensland. (Time expired)
Employment
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Finance, representing the Treasurer. Senator Canavan will be pleased to note that my question, like those of Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Hanson, is about jobs. Can the minister update us on the impact of the coalition's plans for jobs and growth, particularly in my home state of Queensland, where unemployment and job creation is a real issue at the moment.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:35): I thank Senator Macdonald for that question. Yes, I can, but let me say first up that the Liberal-National Party here in this parliament and in Queensland stands for policies which support business, support investment and support jobs, whereas the Labor Party is demonstrably anti business, anti investment and anti jobs. The policies that we've pursued in recent years have helped create more jobs and attract more investment in Queensland: our business tax cuts for more than 540,000 Queensland businesses so far, our free trade agreements which are helping Queensland exporting businesses sell more Queensland products and services into key markets in our part of the world, and our ambitious infrastructure investment program, which is delivering results for Queensland—12,600 new jobs were created in Queensland in October and 131,000 over the past year.
But we know this is not good enough. We could do so much better if only we were working with a pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-investment government in Queensland. There are areas that could do with more investments, more projects and more jobs, in particular the Fitzroy and areas around Townsville and Rockhampton. That is why this government supports the Adani project. That is why the Liberal National Party in Queensland supports the Adani project unequivocally. But the Labor Party in Queensland, in the face of the Greens, is just another case of wibble wobble, wibble wobble, jelly on a plate: 'We're for it, we're against it, we're for it, we're against it.' That is the Queensland Labor Party. We need people standing up for jobs. We need Tim Nicholls and the Liberal-National Party standing up for jobs in Queensland. We need the Adani project to get up. We need the Labor Party in Queensland to get out of the way.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (14:37): I really would like to ask the minister more about the wibble wobble, but instead could he explain how the federal coalition's economic policies are supporting the creation of more jobs and stronger economic growth around Australia but particularly in my home state of Queensland?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): I thank Senator Macdonald for that supplementary. The fundamental understanding that we on this side of the chamber, the Liberal-National Party, have here in this parliament and in Queensland is if we support businesses so they can be more successful and more profitable, they can hire more Australians and pay them better wages over time. In fact, that is the only way that businesses can employ more Australians and pay them better wages. Labor's higher taxes for business, Labor's anti-trade, higher electricity prices approach, will make it harder for businesses to be successful, which means less investment, less growth, fewer jobs and lower wages. In Queensland our free trade agreements, for example, are delivering real outcomes. In manufacturing, for example, Superior Jetties on the Gold Coast are selling additional products into China, installing high quality pontoon products for vessel-berthing needs all over Australia and in different parts of the world, because the tariffs for their products are going down from seven to 18 per cent to nothing. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (14:39): I thank the minister for the advice about the federal coalition's plans for jobs and growth in Queensland. I ask the minister: what would be the economic consequences if those plans for jobs and growth were not being implemented?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:39): If we are not able to implement our plan for jobs and growth, it means lower growth, less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages. That will be the consequence of a Labor government in Canberra and it will be the consequence of a Labor government continuing in Queensland. Higher taxes, higher electricity prices, more red tape, less trade and opposing a great project like the Adani project: all of these make it harder for businesses to be successful; all of these lead to fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for people across Australia to get ahead. The Adani project is quite tangible. There will be 16,000 jobs in the Galilee Basin lost if the Adani project doesn't get ahead. There are 10,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs as a result of the Adani project itself and 1,100 jobs in Townsville, which Senator Macdonald will be very conscious of. Townsville is a hub for the Adani project alongside Rockhampton as another hub. (Time expired)
Yemen: Human Rights
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Yesterday the ABC reported that as part of Operation Manitou, the Royal Australian Navy on 16 August held training exercises with its Saudi Arabian counterpart in the Middle East, not far from where the very same Saudi Arabian navy is, as we speak, enforcing an ongoing naval blockade of Yemen expressly designed to starve millions of Yemeni civilians to death. We've all seen the harrowing images of emaciated children, barely more than skin and bones. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam have stated that they've asked the Department of Defence for an explanation around this exercise. Have you provided this explanation to Human Rights Watch and Oxfam? Can you please inform the chamber today as to why we are having a military exercise with Saudi Arabia? Have any Australian arms been used in this blockade?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:41): I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question. Australia is part of the US-led Combined Maritime Forces, as you would be aware, in the Middle East and has been for a number of years. In fact, HMAS Newcastle, which I believe to be the vessel that you're referring to, is the 65th rotation in which Australia is participating in the Combined Maritime Forces.
When the CMF is active and the members thereof are active, it's a 32-nation US-led partnership. It's focused on countering terrorism, on preventing piracy, on encouraging regional cooperation and on promoting a safe maritime environment in international waters. When participants in the Combined Maritime Forces are active, they engage opportunistically, as it were, from time to time in joint activities such as the one to which Senator Whish-Wilson refers. That is the basis upon which the engagement occurred between Australia and Saudi Arabia and their respective navies.
Our contribution to maritime security in the Middle East region does not include enforcement of any blockade on Yemen. We are in no way involved in that process. I'm not aware of the status of the correspondence from Human Rights Watch, but I will take that aspect of your question on notice and seek advice from Defence.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:43): I thank the minister for her response. The UN's humanitarian chief has warned that the Saudi coalition's blockade will lead to potentially the world's worst famine in decades. Seven million people are on the brink of starvation and more than 50,000 children are expected to die of cholera this year alone. What is the Australian government's position on the Saudi blockade, and will you take this opportunity today to condemn the blockade and this impending human rights catastrophe?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:43): I have sought advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to this issue. Senator Whish-Wilson is indeed correct when he refers to the United Nations' concerns that have been raised in relation to the situation in Yemen as a very significant humanitarian crisis. Australia has made contributions to support in Yemen since the beginning of this year. Minister Bishop announced the most recent contribution of $10 million on 16 September. That assistance has helped to deliver food, health care, water and sanitation to the many people who are in need of urgent assistance.
We are also contributing to the humanitarian response in Yemen through our funding of the UN Central Emergency Response Fund. We've provided $33 million to UN CERF, as it is known, over the past three years, which has helped UN CERF provide $20 million in 2016 and $60 million in 2015 to Yemen. We have urged all those engaged in the conflict—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne. Senator Whish-Wilson is on his feet. Senator Whish-Wilson, do you have a point of order? I think Senator Payne may have concluded her answer, or the time has expired.
Senator Whish-Wilson: I was on my feet with seven seconds to go.
The PRESIDENT: There were five seconds to go, Senator Whish-Wilson.
Senator Whish-Wilson: That's exactly why I'm taking a point of order. I asked whether the minister would actually condemn the Saudi blockade. It was a very clear question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, when questions have prefaces, ministers are allowed to address those. I call you now for your second supplementary question.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:45): Neil James, of the Australian Defence Association, found the timing and location of the exercise puzzling. On the issue of perception, he said:
Australia is not involved in the conflict between Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in Yemen. And we should avoid any such connection.
What discussions were held within government and Defence prior to this exercise going ahead to avoid the perception of complicity in this blockade and a taint on the Royal Australian Navy?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:45): As I said to the senator in response to his first question, an exercise such as this is engaged in on an opportunity basis—that is, when ships that are part of the CMF are in the same place at the same time. What Australia has done is to urge all those involved in Yemen to end the conflict and to return to UN led negotiations aiming for a permanent end to the hostilities. Australian officials have made representations to the parties to the conflict regarding the importance of allowing unhindered humanitarian access and the need to respect international humanitarian law. In relation to the position of the ADF, Australia does not conduct operations in Yemeni territorial waters or Yemini airspace. Nor do we currently have a defence relationship with—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, a point of order?
Senator Whish-Wilson: It is a point of order on relevance. I've waited until 18 seconds are left to go. My question was very clear: were there discussions within Defence and between government about the dangers of conducting this exercise now, with a blockade going on that's forcing the starvation of seven million people?
The PRESIDENT: Senator, please don't restate the question. Again I make the point—and we had an example earlier in the week—that, when there are prefaces to questions, ministers are allowed to address the preface to the question as well as the final words of the question.
Senator PAYNE: I endeavoured to indicate in response to Senator Whish-Wilson's question that that is not the nature of the type of activity that is engaged in within the CMF. The engagements occur between naval representatives, ship to ship, on an opportunistic basis. I've made Australia's position very clear. I've indicated what— (Time expired)
Women in Sport
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Communications and the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Senator Fifield. Over the weekend, Australia took on England in a historic day-night women's Ashes test match. Does the minister agree that the event was of a kind the televising of which should be available free to the general public? If not, why not?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Acting Minister for Regional Communications) (14:47): I think all colleagues welcome great Australian sporting teams and great Australian sporting triumphs. As colleagues—who I know are very keen followers of Australian media law—are aware, it is ultimately a matter for Australian media organisations as to the broadcast rights that they purchase. Obviously, that is qualified to the extent that we have what's known as the anti-siphoning list. The anti-siphoning list is not there to guarantee that certain events will be free to air; it is there to give free-to-air broadcasters—commercial broadcasters—the first rights to purchase those events. I should point out that the anti-siphoning list doesn't mandate that free-to-air commercial TV has to purchase particular events, it doesn't prevent them from onselling them and it doesn't make it mandatory that they in any way seek to acquire those events. I just thought I'd provide that context for the way sporting rights operate in Australia.
Colleagues would be aware that recently a majority of us in this place together moved to update and reform Australia's media laws. Part of that was to have a sensible renovation of the anti-siphoning list.
The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator McAllister?
Senator McAllister: The minister has provided relevant context, but he has yet to answer my question. I asked him whether he agreed that the event was of a kind the televising of which should be available free to the general public.
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, on the point of order: could I just say that the minister should also have referred to the Townsville Fire women's basketball team, which should also be broadcast nationally.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, please take your seat. Senator McAllister, as you know, I can't direct a minister how to answer a question. I believe the minister is being relevant to the question. I draw his attention to the question. Senator Fifield.
Senator FIFIELD: The point I'm making is that government doesn't mandate which particular platforms events are on. It is a matter for particular media organisations to determine what is free to air and what is not.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:50): Why is gifting pay TV networks $30 million a better use of public funds than supporting the free broadcast of women's sport, televised for all Australians, not just those who can afford to pay?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Acting Minister for Regional Communications) (14:51): Colleagues are obviously aware, and I know Senator McAllister is aware from her question, of the comprehensive and historic media reform that fairly recently passed through this parliament. Part of the package that was agreed upon in the context of the federal budget was that there would be $7½ million per year over four years that would go to subscription TV to facilitate the broadcast of women's sport and other underrepresented sports. It's important to recognise that the Australian Sports Commission, in a recent work a couple of years ago, found that 70 per cent of all women's sport was on Fox Sports. There are indeed four dedicated channels that they use—
Senator Hinch: A point of order, Mr President. When I'm this far back in the chamber and the Greens are caucusing on the phone, I cannot hear the minister's reply.
The PRESIDENT: I will ask colleagues, as I have over the last three days, to show some courtesy to those senators who have requested less noise so they may hear questions and answers. Senator Fifield, have you concluded your answer?
Senator Fifield: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:52): The minister went nowhere to answering my last question, but I will try again. Given that officials have confirmed in estimates that the minister had not sought any advice from them on the grant, isn't it clear that the grant had nothing to do with supporting women's sport and was nothing more than a $30 million taxpayer funded gift?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Acting Minister for Regional Communications) (14:53): In the context of the preparation of the budget, government receives a range of sources of advice as inputs to the decision, but can I just point out, by way of contrast, that, while it is true that the budget determined that there would be $7½ million per annum over four years to Fox Sports, the public broadcasters receive in excess of a billion dollars a year, and that is an important contribution which the public broadcasters, for example, can use to purchase any sporting events that they think are appropriate for their particular mandate and charter. These are the facts.
Central Queensland: Water
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan.
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Mate, I'm this far off being invited into the cabinet—they're getting me ready!
The PRESIDENT: Ignore the interjections, Senator O'Sullivan.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: What I know about what's happening in my home state is: Adani's gone to the bottom of the sea; the Queensland Labor government will not support a base load power station for North Queensland; they are against the sugar industry and want to get rid of the code of conduct, which would bring that big industry to its knees; and they don't want to develop the coal industry with the support of those on the crossbenches.
Senator Jacinta Collins: Do you have a question?
Senator O'SULLIVAN: I certainly do—stand by. Can the minister update the Senate on the coalition government's plans to develop water resources in Central Queensland?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:55): We, as a government, have lots of plans to develop jobs in Queensland. Not only do we support jobs in the coalmining sector, and aren't shy about it; we also want to see jobs coming from farming and agriculture. And wasn't it great news today that we've seen the unemployment rate drop in Australia, with the creation of thousands more full-time jobs under this government.
That's why we've got to push on with developing the water resources of Central Queensland. The Fitzroy Basin in Central Queensland is the second-largest water catchment in the country, behind the Murray-Darling, but it has only one major dam in it. We want to change that. We want to build more dams and more water infrastructure in Central Queensland, to create more jobs. That's why we put $130 million on the table to build the Rookwood Weir. That weir could create 2,100 jobs, double agricultural production in the Fitzroy Basin, droughtproof Central Queensland and underpin the industrial development of Gladstone as well. It ticks boxes all over the place, and that's why we're behind it. That's why we're backing the people of Central Queensland and the farmers of Central Queensland—to give them a future; to be able to create more wealth and more jobs.
Earlier this year, we saw some flooding around the Fitzroy River after Cyclone Debbie came through and did a lot of devastation, and, outside my office in Rockhampton, two Sydney Harbours of water a day were flowing past at the peak. Wouldn't it be better if we had some dams and some infrastructure there to keep some of that water, to hold it back, so that we would be able use it at other times of the year to grow food for our country, to create more value in exports and to create jobs in the farming sector as well? That's what we want to do. We want to get on with it. We just need somebody in Queensland who wants to partner with us. We just need a state government that is willing to partner with us on this production, supports jobs in the agriculture sector, wants to droughtproof Central Queensland and also wants to increase the agricultural wealth of this country and get this nation moving.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:57): Can the minister advise what the anti-job Queensland Labor government is doing to assist these developments?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:57): I can sum it up in one word, Senator O'Sullivan: nothing. They have done absolutely nothing on the Rookwood Weir. It was 10 years ago that the former Premier Peter Beattie committed his government to building the Rookwood Weir. He committed their government to building the Rookwood Weir 10 years ago. It has been more than nine months since the project received both state and federal approvals. Now the Rookwood Weir is ready to go. We could get the bulldozers out tomorrow if we got the tick. It is ready to go. It is shovel ready. It has been more than 500 days since the federal government committed those $130 million. And when we asked the Queensland government what their position was, they said: 'We'll get back to you. We've got to do another business case.' So we're waiting for that business case. They've hidden this report from the Queensland people. I see that the water minister, Mark Bailey, is in the paper today, blaming the fact that the local member put a media release out a couple of weeks ago for the fact that he can't release the business case. This is a joke. They are treating Central Queenslanders like mugs— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:58): This is disturbing. Is the minister aware of what the people of Central Queensland are saying about this?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:58): As I said yesterday in this place, the people of Central Queensland want jobs. They want to see an economic future for their children. And we fully support and back them in that endeavour.
Today in the local Rockhampton paper, TheMorning Bulletin, we read about a local business owner, Simone Lawrie, who owns the Artisan Gluten Free Bakery in Rockhampton. It won business of the year this year. It is a great little business—a new business—in East Street, Rockhampton. Simone says: 'I currently employ 11 staff here at the bakery, but would love to put on more staff and provide more jobs, and I'm sure that will be the case once the Rookwood Weir is under construction.' She wants the weir. She wants to provide more jobs. She wants to sell more bread to more farmers who will be in town as a result of this weir. But the Labor Party don't want to support her. They not going to do anything to help. And, if we do get a Labor government after the next couple of weeks, there'll be more inaction—more doing nothing. The LNP want to build dams. And let's hope they get there, so we can create more jobs.
Ministerial Conduct
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:59): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister's own ministerial standards require ministers to uphold the law and not mislead parliament? Why then has the Prime Minister failed to take any action at all in response to breaches of the standards by his communications minister and employment minister?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:59): Senator Farrell, I am familiar with the ministerial code and the standards, from which you have quoted selectively, I'm sorry to say, Senator Farrell, because what those standards also say is that, if a minister makes a mistake in a statement to parliament, they are under an obligation to correct that statement at the earliest possible opportunity. In relation to my colleague Senator Cash, notwithstanding all the jibes that have come across the chamber from your colleagues in the last couple of weeks, the truth is that the moment Senator Cash became aware that statements that she had made to the Senate estimates committee were incorrect she went right back into that estimates committee after the dinner adjournment and corrected them immediately—immediately; at the first opportunity. That's the position in relation to Senator Cash, Senator Farrell: she was absolutely impeccable in her obedience to the ministerial standards. Her misstatements to the Senate committee were inadvertent, as she has explained many times, because she herself had been misinformed, and the moment she became aware that she had been misinformed she went straight back into the estimates committee and corrected the record at once.
In relation to my colleague Senator Fifield, your question is based on an entirely false premise, Senator Farrell. Senator Fifield has at no stage misled the chamber in relation to anything. In fact, he has been asked about this matter several times this week and has been very thorough and very forthright and very accurate in his responses.
The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Macdonald?
Senator Ian Macdonald: I didn't want to interrupt the leader, although I struggled to hear him, but, for one minute and 40 seconds of the two minutes the leader was answering that question, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, from whom we would expect better things, continued to shout and yell and tried to drown out the minister from his answer. I'd ask you to ask the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as a matter of responsibility for someone in a responsible position, if she could keep quiet just for the last couple of minutes of question time.
The PRESIDENT: I again ask all colleagues to show their Senate colleagues some courtesy when both asking and answering questions. Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:02): Thank you, Mr President. I do have a supplementary question. Given the Attorney-General misled the Senate in relation to dealings with the now former Solicitor-General, the employment minister misled the Senate five times and the communications minister has covered up breaches of the Constitution, and all three remain in cabinet, why does the Prime Minister even bother having ministerial standards?
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:02): Yes—ho, ho, ho, Senator Cormann. Quite right. Absolute rubbish, Senator Farrell. Absolute rubbish. Every single assertion you've made is false. But what you have inadvertently done with that question is you have verified the prediction of my friend Senator Canavan over there, who half an ago predicted that, by the time question time was finished, not a single question would come from the Australian Labor Party about jobs in Queensland or, indeed, about jobs at all. And, indeed, Senator Farrell, this being the last question of the week, it's notable that there has not been a single question from the Australian Labor Party about policy all week. And, with the House of Representatives not sitting this week, with this being the only parliamentary chamber in session this week, what does it say about you and your colleagues that, for the whole week, there was not a single question about policy and not a single question about jobs?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm not calling Senator Farrell until I can hear him. Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:04): Thank you for that protection, President. I do have a further supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister have any standards that he won't sacrifice in order to hold onto his own job?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:04): By their own admission, that is the closest the Australian Labor Party can come to asking a question about a job, for heaven's sake. Senator Farrell, in the good old days you used to represent working people. You couldn't care less. Senator Farrell, the fact is that every minister in this government is strictly observant of the ministerial standards, which are enforced rigorously by the Prime Minister. Senator Farrell, if I might offer you some advice: next time we gather here for question time, why don't you use the intervening week to think up some policy questions rather than the tricky questions, political pointscorings, gibes and intrigue that so obsess you? Why don't you, for once, ask some questions about what matters to Australians? I ask that further questions be placed upon the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS
Meares, Mr Andrew
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:05): by leave—Mr Andrew Meares, who's taking photographs of us as we speak, is retiring this year after 27 years as a press photographer with The Sydney Morning Herald. Those 27 years have included two stints as a member of the parliamentary press gallery, over a period of 12 years. There we are, Mr Meares: get out that other camera; that's good! Mr Meares is a very, very popular and well-liked figure around this building. He has the distinction of having been awarded the Walkley award in 2010—I wasn't responsible for that one, unlike David Speers's one! He also had the rare distinction of being the very first photographer to have been elected the president of the parliamentary press gallery, a position from which he retired only a short while ago.
Of course, we in the Senate are particularly conscious of Mr Meares, because he was the prime mover, with the collaboration of Senator Derryn Hinch and with the support of myself, other government senators and other senators in the chamber, for the relaxation of the rules concerning photography in the Senate. All of a sudden, a wonderful new world opened up to the parliamentary press gallery. After all of those years of taking photographs of those dreary and unattractive people in the House of Representatives, all of a sudden you had a whole new universe of much more attractive people to photograph, here in the Senate! Mr Andrew Meares—or Mearesy, as everyone knows you—we thank you for your service to Australian democracy, because, may I say, the photographers sometimes capture the moment in a way the journalists never can. We thank you for being such a friendly spirit around this building, and we wish you well into the future.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:07): by leave—I also want to acknowledge Mearesy, after in excess of 20 years with Fairfax and a very long time in various stints in the press gallery. You're much more than a mere snapper. You're one of the finest news photographers around, with an ability to find that moment that sums up the drama, the humour and the mood of what's happening in this place. Your photos are sometimes uplifting, sometimes brutal and sometimes funny, but probably never unfair. If anybody hasn't yet done so, I'd urge you to look at Mearesy's Twitter account today. He describes it as 27 frames for 27 years. They are an extraordinary array of photos, from the hostages fleeing the Lindt Cafe, the Cronulla riots, lots of politicians, including the extraordinary shot of George Christensen with the tattoo and the whip—that was a very disturbing photo, I've got to say!—
A government senator: We all think that!
Senator WONG: See? They think that, too—to the scenes of joy here on the floor yesterday in the wake of the overwhelming yes vote for marriage equality. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said, the only reason those photos exist is your relentless campaigning to overturn the restrictive rules that governed what photographers were able to do. As someone who was on the receiving end of that lobbying, I just ended up giving up. I said: 'Okay, Mearesy, we'll do it. We'll do it.' But it has meant that the record of this chamber of the nation's parliament has changed forever. It has changed how history is recorded for this chamber, and that is an enormous contribution. Your talents have been wide ranging—both local disasters and big international stories.
I understand you're giving up for the best of reasons: a long holiday and more time with family. It can't be easy being a great news photographer living on a farm outside Canberra, an hour away, although it gave you great access to lots of photos of the bush and horses and the like. You're giving us up—how could you do that?—for more time on the farm with your children and your wife. Their gain is our loss, but of course we don't begrudge you a moment of it. When we're next sitting here for an all-night sitting, with tempers fraying, and we nervously glance up at the gallery to see if Mearesy's got a shot, we might all be a little bit grateful for but perhaps also a little bit envious of the more relaxed life you now lead. You go with our best wishes.
Coghlan, Mrs Mary
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (15:10): Mr President, I want, through you, to wish your grandmother all the best on her 100th birthday, which I believe is tomorrow.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I'll pass on your wishes, Senator.
CONDOLENCES
Simpson, Mr Julian
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:10): by leave—This morning we awoke to the news that an Australian diplomat by the name of Julian Simpson had tragically died in New York. He was a second secretary to the United Nations, and I want to put on the record that I came to know Julian last year when on secondment to the United Nations with Senator Lisa Singh. Senator Singh and I were babysat—that's how I termed it; I'm sure that's not the official term, but it might be how the diplomats regard it. He showed us through the intricacies of the United Nations system. He introduced us to the best coffee places in New York and showed us how to access the subway and was our chaperone and our confidant. He was a thorough professional. He was a credit not only to the Australian diplomatic service but to his family and his wife. He's taken too soon at 30 years of age. It is a tragedy. I wanted to put that on the record because, even though we only came into his orbit for a brief period of time, he left a lasting legacy. To receive the news today is just devastating for those who knew him. My condolences, and I'm sure those of Senator Singh, go to his wife and his family. Julian had a love of the country. He used to enjoy going to Central Park and gazing upon the trees where he couldn't see any buildings, and it took him back to his rural roots. I'm sure he's gazing at the trees somewhere and looking down at us. Vale.
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:12): by leave—I was also very saddened to hear this morning the news of the passing of Australia's diplomat Julian Simpson, and I would like to, firstly, thank Senator Bernardi for calling me so early this morning to let me know of the sad news. With Senator Bernardi, I also had the privilege of working with Julian at the UN for three months last year. His particular role at the Australian mission was to guide us and to help us through the complexities of the UN, and he did that with generosity, with kindness and with no level of detail left out. I think that so many people today at the UN and at the Australian mission, and his family and friends, must be really suffering and mourning his loss. It is a life lost too soon. He was a fine, intelligent young diplomat. We were very well looked after by Julian and very much made to feel like we were part of the mission family, and it is such a tragedy that Australia has lost such a fine young man, a fine young diplomat. We couldn't have had—and I'm sure Senator Bernardi agrees—a better person to be our diplomatic support while we were at the UN. I pass on my sincere condolences to his family, to his wife and to his friends and the staff at the mission.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:14): by leave—On behalf of the opposition, can I extend our condolences to the family and loved ones of Mr Julian Simpson. I looked at the words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs today, and she described him as a professional, diligent and highly skilled diplomat and someone dedicated to the service of our nation as a member of the foreign service. I extend my condolences firstly to his family and friends and also to the Australian diplomats in New York, who have lost a valued colleague.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:15): by leave—Can I add my condolences to the family of the late Mr Simpson. The accident in which he was killed overnight was just one of those random events of life that can afflict people out of the blue. I was not acquainted with the gentleman concerned, but I know my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs this morning had some very heartfelt things to say about him. He was a young man. It was a life full of promise tragically lost too soon. On behalf of the government I want to associate myself with the remarks of those who knew the gentleman concerned, and on behalf of the government I offer my condolences to his loved ones.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:16): by leave—On behalf of the Australian Greens can I associate us with those messages of condolence. This is a tragic loss, and I feel deeply for Mr Simpson's family at this very sad time.
STATEMENTS
Simpson, Mr Julian
Meares, Mr Andrew
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (15:16): by leave—In relation to Mr Julian Simpson: it was a tragic mishap in New York. They were actually celebrating the wonderful news from Australia and had been up on the roof to look at the rainbow tribute to Australia on the Empire State Building when that mishap occurred.
On a lighter note, I just want to say to Mearesy, thank you. The changes, the bending of the rules, the breaking of the rules for photographs to be taken here in the Senate: you were largely responsible for that—you and Mike Bowers.
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator HINCH: The snappers got me, a former scribbler. They knew they had a sympathetic ear, so I took on their cause. It was the first success I had here. I had to work over Stephen Conroy at the time, I must admit. I want to thank both the Attorney-General and Senator Wong. You both in the end came good on this, and we managed to get it through. I was thinking about this only yesterday, because those wonderful photographs that were taken here—historical moments in the Senate—would not have happened yesterday if that law had not been changed. Of course, if it hadn't been changed, you wouldn't have got me asleep in the chamber on the first day of the 45th Parliament, but that also went with it. Mearesy, good luck with it. I don't know how you're going to walk away from it. You were a gem to work with. The fact that it took nearly 20 years to get it changed and to just get us in line with the other place was fantastic. Good luck!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Multiculturalism
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:18): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ketter today relating to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (Queensland).
It wouldn't be a Senate sitting week without some exercise in semantics by Senator Brandis, and today's exercise involved asserting that despite there being absolutely no dispute whatsoever that the LNP in Queensland intends to preference One Nation ahead of Labor in 49 seats—I'll repeat that: One Nation ahead of Labor in 49 seats—the Attorney-General is willing to come into this chamber and say that there is no deal. He said this, I gather from his answer, on the basis that there's no agreement about a shared ministerial role and no agreement about a coalition of any kind. But it really doesn't negate the basic fact, which is this: in Queensland, the LNP has chosen to put One Nation ahead of Labor in 49 different seats, thus significantly increasing the chances that One Nation may play a significant role in the next parliament in Queensland. The practical consequence is that they're just rolling out the red carpet for One Nation there, just as they did in Western Australia and just as they did, I might say, in this chamber when they insisted on forcing through a set of reforms to the way the Senate is elected, which gave rise, in the full Senate election, to having three One Nation representatives sitting on the crossbench.
I say to coalition members, some of whom I am certain will be very concerned about this: you ought to be very, very cautious about bolstering the political opportunities for One Nation. However, you don't need political advice from me; you can make up your own minds. My concern is what they're doing to Australian public policy, because they are absolutely clear on what they think about Australia's multicultural society. They were very clear about their position back in July. They said:
Multiculturalism has failed everywhere. It is negative and divisive, a weight that is drowning our once safe and cohesive society. One Nation will abolish multiculturalism …
Shame on them for laying the blame for Australia's problems at the feet of our ethnic communities. We couldn't find harder workers or more loyal citizens than our ethnic communities. And shame on One Nation for asserting that in their election material. But the greater shame lies with the LNP, willing to give One Nation a leg-up into the Queensland parliament.
One Nation have also promised to abolish the Racial Discrimination Act. In a week where Australians have overwhelmingly rejected discrimination, how extraordinary it is that the coalition is willing to tolerate arrangements that politically support a party committed to removing one of the most important protections against race based discrimination. It's absolutely shameful. The reassurances from Senator Brandis really ring hollow, because, in the end, you can talk all you like about how committed the coalition is under Malcolm Turnbull, supporting multiculturalism—blah, blah, blah—but the practical truth is that, through their political actions, their party will go to voters in Queensland, just a short while from now, and say to them, 'We recommend that you preference One Nation above Labor. We recommend that you cast your vote in a way that will maximise the opportunities for One Nation to enter parliament.' I can tell you what the people of New South Wales will think. Fifty-four per cent of people in New South Wales have one or both parents born overseas, and they understand absolutely that when One Nation make derogatory comments about multicultural communities and talk about winding back protections for multicultural communities, they're talking about them—the multicultural communities in my state of New South Wales.
One person who might want to give a bit of thought to how he's going explain this position is Mr Alexander. As I understand it, John Alexander intends to stand again in the seat of Bennelong, where there'll be a by-election on 16 December. Mr Alexander will have to explain to the 75 per cent of people in Bennelong who've got one or both parents born overseas why it is that his party associates itself so closely with One Nation when an election is going on in Queensland and why it associates itself with One Nation here in this chamber, allowing them to shape and drive a coalition policy that is hostile to multiculturalism and hostile to multicultural communities. I tell you what—I don't think they're going to be very forgiving of such a position.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (15:23): Isn't it telling that the Australian Labor Party, in moving after question time that the Senate take note of an answer, should deal in pure politics and not policy. They have an incapacity to deal with the issues confronting the Australian people, like jobs, job creation and the cost of living. And why don't they want to address those issues? Because they know that their track record in Queensland is abysmal, and therefore they will seek to talk about any issue other than those that really matter to the Australian people and, on this occasion, to the people of Queensland. It was interesting that the Labor senator opposite referred to the contest that is about to occur in the seat of Bennelong between that excellent Liberal candidate John Alexander and another former, failed Labor Premier. It reminds me of that former, failed Labor Premier Peter Beattie, who tried to contest a seat in Queensland and failed. Similarly, Kristina Keneally, the Labor candidate in Bennelong, should also fail because she was a failed Premier in New South Wales, leading the Labor Party to the biggest defeat ever of any political party in that state. Of course, she had under her nose and served with three ministers that were referred for corruption. So thank you for the opportunity to remind the electors of Bennelong not to worry about the nonsense that the Labor senator talked about and to remind them of the quality of candidates that they can choose between at the forthcoming by-election in the seat of Bennelong.
In relation to this silly issue that has been raised—not jobs, not job creation, not cost of living, but this alleged deal on One Nation preferences—let's be very clear: no deal has been done. No deal has been done, so for the Australian Labor Party to continually assert that a deal has been done is to seek to run another 'Mediscare' campaign on the people of Queensland. It is simply untrue. I learnt a long time ago, as a young lawyer, that the mere repetition of a false assertion does not obviate the need for facts. Clearly not a single fact was offered in that five-minute speech by the Labor senator as to why she asserts that a deal has occurred. No evidence. Why? Because no deal has been made.
If we do want to talk about One Nation in Queensland, if a Labor Queensland senator were to join this debate he may tell us how the Labor Party won the seat of Herbert at the last federal election. The honourable senator would be telling us how One Nation preferences delivered the seat to the Australian Labor Party. Here they are, gathering in the One Nation preferences and winning seats on that basis, and then saying, 'This is a bit embarrassing; what do we do?' Rather than fessing up to what they do, they seek to assert that that is what the Liberal Party does.
What is more, Senator Hanson herself has indicated that the Australian Labor Party contacted One Nation asking One Nation to run dead in Labor seats. Talk about sleazy deals! They tried to do a deal with One Nation. It appears as though they've been rejected. They've never repudiated or denied that which Senator Hanson has asserted—that Labor tried to do a deal with One Nation. They got rejected, so what is their defence? They falsely assert that the Liberal National Party has sought to make such a deal—a deal that does not exist; there is not a single shred of evidence in support of that false assertion. Yet again the Australian people get an insight into the Labor Party—false assertions and an incapacity to deal with the real issues of the day: jobs and cost of living.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:28): As a Queensland senator, the only Tasmanians who are going to lecture me about Queensland are my mum and dad. That also clears up my citizenship at the same time; they were both born in Tasmania. This debate is actually all about jobs, health and education. That's what it is all about. We know what happens when those opposite do deals with One Nation—workers are the losers. They lose industrial rights and there are health cuts and education cuts. That's the consequence of these deals. When this government and the LNP do deals with One Nation, that's what we see.
As Senator McAllister highlighted, the support for multiculturalism from those opposite is just words. In question time we spoke about One Nation's policy to abolish multiculturalism. This is how One Nation describes multiculturalism:
It is negative and divisive, a weight that is drowning our once safe and cohesive society.
That is how One Nation described multiculturalism. We know that Senator Brandis has previously reprimanded Senator Hanson for ridiculing the Islamic community and said it was an appalling thing to do, but, given the opportunity in question time today, Senator Brandis failed to do it. He failed to do it in regard to One Nation and he failed to do it in regard to his Queensland LNP comrades and Tim Nicholls.
This is part of a pattern of behaviour from Senator Hanson over many years. We know she has attacked Asians. We know that she has attacked foreign students, who are economically important for Australia. She has consistently attacked multiculturalism as well. It really is concerning that Senator Brandis failed to condemn Tim Nicholls and the LNP for their decision to preference One Nation in 49 seats.
The arrangements between the LNP and One Nation have consequences. One Nation had four senators elected, but there are now three, as Senator Anning left earlier. We have seen in this chamber One Nation vote with their coalition partners 85 per cent of the time. They voted for antiworker industrial relations laws. They voted for cuts that have impacted on pensioners and those who can least afford it. The concern is that this is what is coming to Queensland, because the decision from the LNP to preference One Nation in 49 seats is going to mean that there are more One Nation MPs elected in Queensland. That is going to have consequences for Queensland if they form a government with Tim Nicholls after Saturday week. We have to imagine the damage that will do to Queensland.
What we have seen at the federal level over the last 12 months will apply to Queensland—their antiworker agenda. We know what they did when they were elected in 2012. We know the cuts they made, the job losses, the cuts to health, the cuts to education and the antiworker agenda. We know the importance of ethnic communities in Queensland as well. This decision they are dismissive of will have real consequences in Queensland. It is not the first time the LNP have done it. Over many years they have done deals with One Nation and they have suffered a price. That's why they're denying it. That's why they're saying there is no deal—because they know how damaging electorally it is.
What are Senator Brandis and Tim Nicholls going to say to the Vietnamese community in Mount Ommaney? What are they going to say to the Taiwanese community in Mansfield? What are they going to say to the Vietnamese community and the Taiwanese community in Mansfield about their deal with One Nation? What are they going to do with the Chinese community in Toohey as well? This is what the decision of One Nation has done. Let alone the growing Indian community throughout Brisbane, particularly in Chatsworth—
Senator Brandis: The Indians don't vote for you either.
Senator CHISHOLM: That's a very arrogant attitude from Senator Brandis. This is what they don't like. The LNP will be held to account for their decision to preference One Nation in Queensland.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (15:33): After question time in this take note of answers debate you've got to love it when you smell a whiff of hypocrisy floating over to this side of the chamber. I have to say that, of all the cheeky things those opposite have said in this chamber, what I just heard from the previous two Labor speakers really does take the cake. Instead of coming in here and talking about jobs and development for Queensland in the state election, as we predicted they came in and absolutely failed to tell the truth.
First of all, I will make it very clear: there is no preference deal between the LNP and One Nation in Queensland. Any suggestion that there is is just simply untrue, no matter how often they suggest that in this chamber rather than talking about Queensland jobs. The LNP have made their position very clear: no deals, no coalition, no shared ministry. But listening to Senator Chisholm then reminded me of an exchange in this chamber with Senator Hanson earlier this year. While Senator Chisholm is no longer in the chamber, I will still read this out, because it absolutely puts paid to the lie perpetrated by those opposite in question time and now in take note of answers. Senator Hanson absolutely belled the cat in the Senate earlier this year, on what we've just heard from Senator Chisholm. Senator Hanson said:
Isn't it amazing what comes across this chamber? Wow, you must be really worried about One Nation, because you have spent your time on this—
as they have again today and not on jobs—
that a preference deal had been done. The whole fact is that Labor have approached One Nation for preferences.
Senator Dastyari, if you recall, you said:
No, we haven't.
Senator Hanson replied:
You do not want to talk about that. How about Evan Moorhead, the Queensland state secretary?
That is, the state secretary of the Labor Party. Senator Chisholm, who was just in here saying something completely different, said:
We'll put you last.
Senator Hanson then replied:
You should know him, Senator Chisholm; you were a former state secretary in Queensland. He—
that is, Evan Moorhead, the Queensland ALP state secretary—
called up my staff on 25 January this year and wanted to do a grubby deal with us. Listen to this: Evan Moorhead wanted One Nation to run dead in all Queensland Labor seats and in return Labor would run dead in One Nation strongholds or in seats they had no chance of winning. So don't talk about grubby deals.
How short your memories are on the other side! Instead of talking about Labor's policy for jobs and job creation in Queensland, again, as we expected, you have come in and made accusations about things that are simply not true. But I think you must have forgotten that we actually rang that bell in here earlier on. We found out who was the one who was trying to do preference deals with One Nation, and it was not the LNP; it was Evan Moorhead, the Queensland state Labor secretary. How short your memories are!
It doesn't stop there. Instead of talking about jobs and job creation in this chamber and making sure that countries like India use the cleanest possible coal—which is Australian coal—the Queensland Labor Party, who previously absolutely supported the project, have now, surprise, surprise, bowed to the Greens and turned their backs on Central Queensland for inner Brisbane seats. Queensland Labor had promised voters that they supported the Adani Carmichael mine and the tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs that would go with it. In fact, on 18 February last year the Hon. Curtis Pitt, Treasurer for Queensland, wrote to Josh Frydenberg, the then minister for northern Australia. Guess what he said? Guess what the Queensland Labor minister said to Josh Frydenberg? He acknowledged that the Queensland government must be a legal conduit for the NAIF, that the government would continue to support the NAIF's objectives, and provided a list of projects that was to be assessed by the NAIF. Guess what? This project was on that list. In May this year, the Treasurer affirmed that the Queensland government would uphold its responsibilities should any NAIF loan be given to Adani. Well, well, how times have changed! (Time expired)
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): I want to acknowledge the very lovely contribution that Senator Reynolds made earlier today—it does feel like it's been more than one day!—on the issue of marriage equality. I want to acknowledge that before tearing apart the slanderous arguments she's been making since.
Senator Reynolds interjecting—
Senator DASTYARI: You started off well and it's been downhill since then. When is this government going to stop running a protection racket for One Nation—when? We saw what happened today. We are at a point now where questions are being written by the government for One Nation. Senator Reynolds is about to leave. I was going to make some fantastic rugby references but, unfortunately, I barely understand how that sport works, unlike you, Senator Reynolds. So I will not make an analogy.
But what I do want to say is this: One Nation has been given a blank cheque by this government time and time again. What is happening in Queensland is a precursor of what is to come—a 49-seat preference deal. It does not pass the believability test to turn around and say, 'There's no deal; it's just a coincidence'—just a coincidence that, in 49 seats of the 58 they're even bothering to contest, One Nation are preferencing the Liberal National Party. That's not a coincidence; that's a deal. That's what a deal looks like. I'm not sure it's a good deal but it's definitely a deal. One Nation are a dangerous, dangerous change to the type of political debate we're having in this country, and the step-up that they've been given by preference deals from the Liberal Party should be very, very concerning. On the weekend I was out in Sydney in the federal electorate of Bennelong.
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
Senator DASTYARI: I was in Bennelong on Saturday. It is an amazing community. I don't know why Senator McKenzie is saying such horrible things about it.
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
Senator DASTYARI: I withdraw that. Senator McKenzie was making a reference to regional Victoria.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Fifield: Do you withdraw that?
Senator DASTYARI: No; she was making a reference to regional Victoria. That was actually true.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Senator Dastyari, please address your comments through the chair.
Senator DASTYARI: Speaking to cafe owners and local shop owners and getting them to sign a petition highlighting the preference deal that has now been done between the LNP and One Nation, there was just horror from these amazing multicultural communities in Sydney that the LNP up in Queensland can act so differently to how the Liberal Party has acted previously. The former member for Bennelong John Howard, the former Prime Minister—again, not someone I necessarily agree with on many points—at least had the strength to rule out preference deals with One Nation. Malcolm Turnbull, the so-called giant of the Liberal Party, hasn't even been prepared to pick up the phone and order the Queensland branch to not do deals with One Nation—something John Howard, as Prime Minister, was prepared to do. We will expose the hypocrisy of what the Liberal Party in Sydney and in our multicultural centres say about multiculturalism, say about ethnic communities and say about our migrant communities, and we will expose the reality of the decisions and the deals they make in places like Queensland.
Today, we saw how close the relationship between One Nation and the Liberal Party has become. We see it time and time again. We see it when Senator Hanson gets dragged into Senate estimates to run protection for Minister Cash. We see it in the types of questions, and how the questions are asked, between Senator Canavan and Senator Hanson and we see it very, very clearly in the preference deal that sees 49 seats. Senator Chisholm touched on this point earlier, but these things don't just happen by chance and they have consequences. The consequence is going to be a huge One Nation presence in the Queensland parliament, which is bad for democracy, bad for multiculturalism and bad for the vision of Australia that many of us have.
Question agreed to.
Yemen: Human Rights
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:43): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to a joint training exercise between the Royal Australian Navy and its Saudi Arabian counterpart.
Right now Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition that is blockading Yemen. This has been recognised as an international crisis, a catastrophe waiting to happen. It's estimated that nearly seven million people are facing starvation and death because of the conflict in that region and this blockade. We've just participated in a military exercise, training the Saudi Arabian navy—the navy that's conducting the blockade. Our training exercise was near where the blockade was occurring. We are training the country that's blocking humanitarian assistance, assistance that—as Senator Payne actually said, from advice from the foreign minister today—Australia is providing to Yemen. How could we be in a situation where we've just done a military training exercise that is training a country to block our own humanitarian assistance to a country that is facing an absolute catastrophe? That's what I got from Senator Payne's answers today.
I asked her why we were having a military exercise with Saudi Arabia, given this internationally recognised and condemned blockade. The best answer I got was that we have these training exercises with Saudi Arabia and other countries on an opportunistic basis. Isn't it an opportunity not to do a military exercise with a country that's conducting a blockade of humanitarian assistance to seven million starving people that need our assistance—a catastrophe that's been recognised by Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, Oxfam and NGOs all around the world? They've written to the defence department, to the minister, and she wasn't even aware that she had received a 'please explain' letter from NGOs about why the Australian government and the Australian Navy would be training the Saudi Arabian navy at a time like this.
I called on Senator Payne today to condemn the blockade, just as the United Nations has recently, but she refused to. I now call on her to also cancel any military exercises with Saudi Arabia, especially naval exercises, and make a statement that we find their blockade of Yemen and the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe there totally unacceptable. It concerns me deeply that there is a move afoot for us to cosy up to Saudi Arabia. Mr Christopher Pyne has been touting as often as possible—telling anyone who will listen to him—that he plans to build a military industrial complex in this country by selling weapons, arms, and military hardware to Saudi Arabia. I hope to hell this attempt to have a cosy defence export relationship with Saudi Arabia is not behind why we had an opportunistic military exercise with their navy.
What we should have is a decision-making process in place—which I also asked Minister Payne about—where our navy and government departments could assess the risk of at least the perception of a taint on our Royal Australian Navy and upon our country for conducting a military exercise with the Saudi Arabian navy at a time like this. Where's the process? Where's the ministerial, cross-government process to assess this kind of thing? I quoted Neil James from the Defence Association, the ADA, today. He said, 'At best, this is not a good look.' Let me tell you what: at best this is a serious misstep. At worst, I think this is a scandal. This is a scandal that we've been involved with Saudi Arabia. This conflict's been going on for three years now, and it's getting worse. And yet this is a country that we're selling arms to and we're doing military exercises with. It's not good enough. The minister needs to come out and condemn this blockade, and I call on her to do that.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:49): by leave—I give notice that I shall move:
Senator Polley to move on 29 November 2017:
That—
the Senate adopt the recommendation at paragraph 4.10 of Scrutiny digest 13 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, proposing an amendment to standing order 24; and
the temporary order of the Senate of 29 November 2016, concerning an amendment to standing order 24, cease to have effect. ( general business notice of motion no. 587)
Senator Di Natale: to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
The time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations be extended to . ( general business notice of motion no. 588)
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
The time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers be extended to 6 December 2017. ( general business notice of motion no. 589)
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
notes that:
the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 (AIC Act) establishes three independent statutory office holders:
the Information Commissioner,
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Commissioner, and
the Privacy Commissioner,
subsections 11(5)(a) and (b) and subsections 12(5)(a) and (b) of the AIC Act describe the independence of each Commissioner,
in the six months following the Royal Assent to the AIC Act, three commissioners were appointed to the three office holder’s positions,
since the unsuccessful attempt by the Abbott Government to abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, two commissioners have left office and have not been replaced,
currently Mr Timothy Pilgrim fills the statutory position of the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner, and the position of FOI Commissioner is vacant on account of Mr Pilgrim not holding the legal qualifications required in section 14 of the AIC Act, and
the AIC Act requires the appointment of three independent statutory office holders, and the Government is constitutionally bound to maintain and execute the laws of the land and uphold the will of the Parliament; and
calls on the Government to immediately commence the process of appointing an independent Privacy Commissioner and an independent FOI Commissioner, in accordance with the AIC Act. ( general business notice of motion no. 590 )
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
expresses its grave concern that a social media account, passwords and potentially the internet-enabled device or devices of the Minister for Defence Industries (Mr Pyne) may have been hacked;
further expresses concern about the potential that Australia’s national security may have been placed in a compromising position; and
calls on the Attorney-General to report back to the Parliament, before it rises, on investigations that have been conducted into the matter. ( general business notice of motion no. 591 )
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
notes with deep concern the high number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care;
acknowledges the urgent need to address this issue; and
calls on the Federal Government to show leadership and work with state and territory governments to ensure the implementation of Aboriginal Family-Led Decision Making, delivered in partnership with Aboriginal agencies. ( general business notice of motion no. 592 )
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Economics Legislation Committee
Economics References Committee
Select Committee into the Future of Work and Workers
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ) (15:49): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Acting Minister for Regional Communications) (15:49): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Hume
Economics Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rhiannon to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017
Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rice to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee’s inquiry into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson
Future of Work and Workers—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Gichuhi, Macdonald and Reynolds
Participating members: Senators Abetz, Brockman, Bushby, Duniam, Fawcett, Hume, Paterson and Smith
Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Participating member: Senator Anning.
BUDGET
Consideration by Estimates Committees
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (15:50): I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:
Master Facility Agreements
Dear Mr President
I refer to the Senate order agreed on 15 November 2017 seeking the tabling of copies of the Master Facility Agreements (MFA) agreed between the Federal Government and the Governmentsof Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, by 12:45pm on 16 November 2017. These documents relate to the arrangements for the provision of funding by the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.
As I indicated in my response to a Senate Estimates question asked on 1 June 2017, it is my intention to release the MFAs once all have been signed and once I have received consent from each of the other parties to the agreements.
The former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP wrote toeachofthepartiestotheMFAs regardingthetablingoftheMFAsandIhaveyettoreceive responses from all parties. My department is actively seeking those responses.
It continues to be my intention to table the MFAs as soon as I have received those responses.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for resource and Northern Australia,Senator Matthew Canavan
Law Enforcement
Dear Mr President,
Order for production of documents
I write to you in relation to the Senate's order of 14 November 2017, on a notice of motion moved by Senator Doug Cameron, that I produce certain documents by 3:30pm today concerning an investigation by the Registered Organisations Commission (ROC) into the Australian Workers Union (AWU), the execution of a search warrant on AWU premises by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and related matters.
On 26 October 2017, the AFP commenced an investigation into the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information concerning the execution of search warrants obtained by the ROC. On 27 October 2017 during a hearing of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee (the Committee), the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, claimed public interest immunity (PII) over all matters that may be relevant to this investigat ion. I have attached a copy of this letter.
In his letter to the Committee, the Attorney-General noted that prejudice to law enforcement investigations is a recognized ground of public interest immunity, and that it is sufficient for this ground to be invoked that investigations are in progress by the police and the provision of information sought could inte rfere with those investigations. As the Attorney-General observed in his letter and in evidence to the Committee, the immunity is claimed broadly because of the risk of prejudice to the investigation. The provision of information concerning matters subject to investigation would have potential to affect its conduct by:
inhibiting the provision of information by potential witnesses
influencing lines of inquiry by police or the evidence of witnesses, or
disclosing avenues of inquiry.
Consistent with the Attorney-General's PII claim, I claim PH over all documents sought in Senator Cameron's motion concerning the ROC investigation into the AWU and related matters, on the grounds that their production could also prejudice the AFP' s investigation.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash
COMMITTEES
Publications Committee
Report
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (15:50): On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Publications, I present the 11th report of the committee.
Ordered that the report be adopted.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (15:50): On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report on the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
DOCUMENTS
Australian Workers Union
Master Facility Agreements
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Acting Minister for Regional Communications) (15:51): by leave—I table documents relating to the order for production of documents concerning the investigation of the Australian Workers Union and the Master Facility Agreements.
BILLS
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:51): I rise to continue my contribution to the debate on this very important Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. As I was referring to earlier, yesterday was a historic day for Australia. People will always remember where they were when they heard the result on that day. I feel honoured to be part of the debate and of ushering this bill into law. I do feel our former senators very closely here in the room with us—if they're listening. Senators Brown, Milne, Wright, Nettle, Simms, Ludlam and Waters have all, time after time, been supporting and campaigning for marriage equality when we Greens have been voting—every vote, every time—on marriage equality.
I feel inspired by yesterday's result. I don't think it's too extreme to say that there was literally joy in the streets. There certainly was down in Braddon last night, where people were celebrating very long into the night. The Australian community has demonstrated that we are compassionate and caring and that we support an inclusive community. I've heard of so many examples of people being proud to vote, and I'm so excited about how many young people engaged. Some families voted together. In my own household, my stepson wanted to vote so strongly and so passionately, but he wanted to vote with his dad, and he wanted to do it right away. So they voted as soon as they could and then walked up together to post their envelopes, to say yes.
We need to remember, however, the toll this survey has taken on many people. From the moment the survey was announced, there was a warning that it would lead to negative campaigning that would be hurtful to many. This has been a challenging time for many, many people. As I articulated in my earlier contribution when I shared a text from a friend of mine, the negative campaigning has had a big effect on many people. Our mental health services were not prepared for the influx of calls seeking help and relief from the divisive commentary that was made during the period of the survey.
But, despite all this, love is winning. Despite the divisiveness and the mistruths, love is winning, and I'm inspired and I congratulate my fellow Australians on this amazing result. We are a step closer to equality—in fact, many steps closer to equality. We are a step closer, through the results yesterday, to ensuring that same-sex couples have the right to marry. Sixty-one point six per cent of Australians voted yes in the postal survey and, in fact, 63.7 per cent of my fellow Western Australians supported marriage equality. In 30 short years, Tasmania has gone from outlawing homosexuality to a 63.6 per cent vote in favour of marriage equality. In the lower house, 133 of 150 electorates voted in support of marriage equality. Australia saw what the debate was truly about: equality. What is truly exciting about the result is the turnout as well. It is very encouraging that an overwhelming majority of Australians took part in the survey, which had a participation rate of 79.5 per cent. That is truly exciting, and it is certainly a high participation rate for a voluntary vote.
While this is a fantastic result that we are extremely pleased with, we still question the need for the survey. Polling showed us there was strong support in Australia for marriage equality. People wanted the parliament to get on with the job and to ensure marriage equality. Yesterday's result reinforces the results of that polling over the last 10 years, and that demonstrates that Australians want marriage equality. They resoundingly said yes. Unfortunately, many LGBTIQ Australians have had to endure the divisive debate and, at times, hurtful commentary over the last couple of months. The survey cost millions, and the money could have been spent on other issues. But Australians have come through that divisive debate and shown that they are a kind, caring, compassionate group of people, and they want equality for all.
As I touched on earlier, these have been difficult times for many LGBTIQ Australians who have endured these months of their lives being scrutinised and have often been criticised. You just need to look at the increased calls various support lines received and the extra demand for frontline mental health services during the survey period to know that it has taken a toll on LGBTIQ Australians and their families. ReachOut Australia saw a 40 per cent increase in demand for services since the survey was first announced. However, we've heard that the postal survey reportedly is coming in $20 million under budget. I'd like to make a suggestion to the government that that money should be given to mental health and counselling services, which have been so stretched and have done so much to support our LGBTIQ community in recent months. As ReachOut chief executive Jono Nicholas has said:
We need answers from the government now more than ever on how they plan to support frontline mental health organisations like ReachOut to heal the mental scars that will remain long beyond the result
So I encourage the government to invest that $20 million very wisely in supporting people with an extension of mental health services.
This is not the first time marriage equality has been before this parliament. As I articulated earlier, I've been on my feet many times in this chamber campaigning for marriage equality and supporting bills—the 23 that were quoted earlier in the day—that sought to introduce marriage equality. There have been many motions. There have been many urgency debates. In fact, I think it would run into the hundreds when you look over the years that this debate has been underway and there's been the campaign in this place to achieve marriage equality.
I'm looking forward to this bill passing and finally putting an end to the years of divisive, hurtful debate over same-sex couples' relationships. We can no longer delay this action, and it's exciting and it is a privilege to be part of this debate. We can no longer deny all Australians the right to marry. We need to pass this bill because it's the right thing to do. It is well beyond time that same-sex couples are treated equally in this country. Now that Australians have had their say, it's time for parliament to step up and be the leaders that Australia deserves. We have been elected by the people who now trust us to pass this legislation as a reflection of their vote. The people have spoken. They have chosen equality, love and fairness. It is time for all Australians to be able to marry the person they love. Love does not discriminate, it does not judge and it does not show prejudice—this is about loving the person you want to spend your life with and being able to marry that person. Let's allow marriage to do the same thing. The changes Mr Howard made to the Marriage Act undermined the institution of marriage. This bill strengthens marriage, ensuring that marriage is equally available to all Australians, and I feel that my marriage will be strengthened by ensuring that all Australians are able and have the right to marry.
There are going to be lots of weddings in this country very soon. I certainly will be getting out my glad rags, let me tell you! I was fortunate enough to be in Canberra on the one day that LGBTIQ Canberrans had the right to marry and, I tell you what, you could not move here without seeing people in ball gowns, in wedding gowns and in very high-heeled shoes. If that's anything to go by, there are going to be lots of weddings. There's going to be, I'd say, a mini economic boost in this country when this bill goes through. People keep talking about how some people won't want to bake cakes, for example, for a same-sex couple who wants to marry. I'm wondering how economically successful they will be if they don't participate in the trade that will ensue from everybody having the right to marry.
I'm looking forward to going to many of the weddings of my friends. When my husband and I got married, we were very conscious that we were doing it at a time when many of our friends and loved ones could not marry. We made a very heartfelt commitment to our LGBTI community, friends and loved ones. We committed and promised that we would not stop campaigning until marriage equality was achieved so that we could stand with them when they got married. So I'm really looking forward to that time when we can stand there and celebrate their love the same way that they stood with my husband and me to celebrate our love and commitment before our friends and families.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work of one of my staff members, Nadine Walker, who over the years has campaigned relentlessly for marriage equality to become a reality. She can't be here with us today due to personal circumstances, but I know yesterday's results mean so much to her and in fact were an early birthday present—so, Nadine, happy birthday today. I'm hoping this is making your day. We are thinking of you with love in our hearts. I also send a message to her partner, Hannah, to say thank you so much for supporting Nadine through this time. Love will win. The Greens have had a lot of stickers with, 'LOVE. WILL. WIN.' I don't know that we're going to have time to make stickers that say 'Love is winning,' but we'll certainly have plenty of time to have stickers saying 'Love has won.' Love is going to win.
I can't tell you how many rallies I've stood up at, supporting marriage equality and promising people that we will get there and we will never stop campaigning to ensure that love will win. We made a promise that we would support marriage equality at every vote, every time—every MP, every vote, every time. Around this country, we can proudly say: every Green MP, every vote, every time. We want to see this bill passed. This bill is supported across parties. People came to the table with compassion and love, wanting to ensure that there was a bill that could be passed by this parliament. This bill is capable of being passed by this parliament. That too will be a historic moment. People will say, 'I remember where I was when that bill passed.' There will be greater joy, literally, in the streets when it passes, way beyond what was seen in Braddon last night and way beyond what I've seen reported in other states, including my home state. It will be a day of joy for so many people when we finally have marriage equality in Australia and people have the right to marry the person they love.
I look forward to continuing to participate in this debate. I look forward to seeing the smiles of joy and the tears that I know will flow very freely when the bill finally passes. Then I look forward to going to lots and lots of weddings and sharing the joy of my loved ones and my friends in their ability to say 'I do', slip rings on each other's fingers, kiss, hug and share their love with their families and friends, because that's what this is about. It is about love and people's commitment to each other. Every human being has the right to do that with the person they love and to enjoy and celebrate that with their family, their loved ones and their friends. So, once again: every Green, every vote, every time. And we'll certainly be voting for this bill. Please, I urge people in this chamber to support this bill.
Senator HUME (Victoria) (16:07): I rise today to speak on the private senator's bill introduced by motion to this place by Senator Smith and also by me, as well as a number of opposition and cross-party senators: the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Introducing this bill to the Senate is something that I was extremely proud to do, not because I have been at the forefront of this campaign. Indeed, I have not. Although my position on same-sex marriage has always been clear and has always been consistent, I have not led the charge. Since entering this place 15 months ago, I haven't made unsolicited comments to the media or issued a press release, I haven't covered myself with glitter or rainbows, I haven't changed my social media profile or picture to multicolours, I haven't attended a rally and I haven't even hashtagged. That's not because I don't believe in the cause—I do, deeply—but my political bandwagoning and virtue signalling, one way or the other, was not going to change a single vote. It was not going to affect the outcome one iota. I knew throughout the debate that, despite my very privileged position as a legislator in the Senate of this great country, my opinion on this issue is no more and no less important than anyone else's; it was the deeply held, personal opinions that were sought and received from the Australian public via the national survey. A glib Facebook post, a Q&A appearance, a Press Club address, a hashtag or a finger-wagging diatribe would have changed nothing. Indeed, who am I to think that I could have changed the outcome? We let the people tell us what they want—and, indeed, they have.
Despite my reluctance to gain political mileage from this issue, I have not recused myself from the responsibility of doing what is right. I have vociferously supported and defended the process not as a way to subvert or delay an outcome but because I believe it gives credibility and authority to that outcome. There was much going on behind the scenes that most of the 12 million Australians who participated will never see, and neither should they. We are here, elected by them, so they should trust us to get this right. I was a coalition member of the cross-party committee for 'yes' established to oversee the postal survey and ensure that the process was undertaken with appropriate safeguards and the highest integrity. The many days of observing the counting of the survey results was logistically challenging to administer and tedious, but it was important to ensure that the process was unquestionable. I want to thank those who volunteered to be an observer over the weeks of the count, both for the no side and for the yes side. Being locked away in a windowless room, watching computer screens all day and checking a random sample of thousands of ballot papers for validity was gruelling work, but each team behaved with patience and with dignity. I want to specifically thank Jarrod Lomas, the coordinator of the observers. He is a man of great organisational skill, wit, patience and dignity, and I have made a new friend.
I have also signed my name, along with my Liberal colleague Senator Reynolds and senators from across the opposition and crossbench, to the notice of motion that introduced the bill we are debating today. It is a bill crafted with meticulous care and consideration by my friend Senator Dean Smith. I took the decision to sign the notice of motion to introduce this bill because bringing on the debate immediately after the results of the survey were known was the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do by the Australian people, who, through the haze and vitriol of much of this debate, have made it abundantly clear that the parliament has their support, the imprimatur and the mandate to change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. It's the right thing to do by all Victorians, who I'm here to represent, for Victoria's support for a yes vote at 64.9 per cent has been overwhelming.
It's the right thing to do by my colleagues right across the chamber who have undertaken extensive committee work, receiving over 400 submissions, with three days of hearings in three states, and hour after hour of cross-party negotiations to return a consensus committee report. That was a historic occasion. A consensus committee report on a contentious issue is the unicorn of the Senate! It was the hard work and the goodwill of the senators involved that made that possible. It was the right thing to do by Senator Smith, a man of extraordinary integrity, kindness, diligence and wisdom, a man whose journey to this point has not been easy. My support for his bill is also a reflection of my respect and admiration for him. It's the right thing to do by my party, which knows that, when you look people in the eye and you make them a promise, you keep it. My party respects those not only who work hard but also who are as good as their word.
In my party, as well as in my country, we value no principle more highly than equality under the law. That includes the legal right to marry. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are equally important but different principles. I believe that the bill before us, meticulously crafted to reflect the consensus views of the cross-party committee on this very issue, not only provides legal equality for all Australians in relation to marriage but does so without diminishing existing freedoms of speech or freedoms of religion. The bill removes existing discrimination in our marriage law, it protects religious institutions and it does not reintroduce commercial discrimination. In doing so, it advances the civic rights of all Australians and provides protection for religious institutions to continue to be guided by the tenets of their faith. Importantly, it actually offers new protections for ministers of religion performing marriages for religious denominations that are not yet recognised. This is particularly noteworthy for independent religious organisations and smaller, emerging religious groups. The bill also permits bodies established for religious purposes to be able to refuse to make a facility available or provide goods and services associated with the solemnisation of a marriage.
Importantly, this bill upholds existing antidiscrimination laws. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that removes an existing right, nor does any of it diminish an existing civil freedom. Very importantly for the deliberations of this chamber and for the millions of Australians who, not through bigotry or homophobia but because of deeply held personal or religious beliefs in hesitation and apprehension voted no, this bill affords far greater levels of religious protection than any of the 22 marriage equality bills that have been introduced since 2004. It is worth noting for the chamber that bodies established for religious purposes are actually already exempt from a number of antidiscrimination laws, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The bill will ensure that the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 is amended to give full effect to the religious protections in the bill.
We should be very clear on this point: this bill is not designed to satisfy those occupying the extremes of the marriage equality debate. That is not the remit of a representative chamber. Rather, the ambition of this legislation is to offer a considered, sensible and balanced pathway forward that will find favour with fair-minded Australians. And there are many, many millions of fair-minded Australians. I was very proud to sign my name to the notice of motion to introduce the Smith bill to the Senate chamber.
It is only a fool or an ideologue or a shameless self-promoter that would not reserve the right to consider amendments. Of course I will. In this chamber, there are many people with good hearts and sharp intellects, and no-one has a monopoly on good ideas. But I will not countenance amendments that in my mind condone brand-new forms of discrimination. Balancing competing freedoms is a very difficult task. We must always remember that, with rights and freedoms, come responsibilities. We have a responsibility to have a respectful and robust debate, but at the end of it all we cannot ignore, we cannot circumvent and we cannot subvert the will of the majority—the majority of both the parliament and the Australian people we are here to represent.
Thank you to the 12 million Australians who came out and voted. To the majority who voted yes, I want to reassure you that we will change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. That is what you voted for overwhelmingly, and that is what my government promised you. To the minority who voted no, thank you for expressing your views in a democratic process. I'm very sorry that the old adage remains true: sometimes in a democracy the other side wins. I hope that today I have reassured you that your genuine concerns have been heard and many of those concerns have already been considered and have been addressed in the bill that we are considering today. The Australian people have instructed the parliament to act, and we will do so. We are all here as humble servants of the Australian people. We have an obligation—a duty, even—to respect their wishes and to act swiftly to make marriage equality a reality in this country. To do anything else would be a betrayal of the trust that the Australian people have put in us.
I am a passionate person on many things, but I am not prone to tears. When the results of the survey came in yesterday, I was surprised to find myself moved to weeping. It was somewhat embarrassing; I was in a meeting surrounded by my colleagues. The relief, the joy and the pride on the faces of those who had gathered in public places around the nation was overwhelming. It got me thinking about that word 'pride', a word used so much in this debate. And, of course, the opposite of pride is shame. I really hope that at the end of this process, when this bill—a good bill, a considered bill, a thorough bill—is passed, same-sex couples will feel proud of their love for one another, proud of the commitment they have made to each other and proud of the welcome place they have in their communities. I hope also that the shame they may have felt in the past is diminished in their memories and eliminated in their futures.
It is our job as legislators to give Australians better futures, so I too am proud today. I'm proud that I have played my small roles behind the scenes, away from the headlines, away from the limelight and away from the virtue signals and the political opportunism, to enable this change to take place. I'm proud of the conduct of my colleagues throughout this chamber in finding a consensus approach to a very difficult subject that has haunted successive governments for more than a decade. I'm proud of my government for standing resolutely by its promises. I am proud that I have not used, and will not use, this issue to advance my own standing within my party, within the parliament or within the electorate. I'm proud that my actions have contributed to the opportunities, the futures and the unbridled happiness of thousands and thousands of LGBTIQ Australians and their families. I am proud that my children, when they grow, will be part of a more accepting, open-minded and inclusive society where no legal construct will cause them or their friends shame.
I will support this bill, I will speak on this bill and I will fight for this bill because the people of Australia have told us emphatically that they want this bill passed. It is a commitment that we have made to many millions of people from the LGBTIQ community from my state of Victoria, from my party and from across Australia. But, more importantly, it is the right thing to do. I don't want to horrify the chamber, but I have Irish blood in me—it's not a section 44 issue, I promise! In fact, you'll have to go a very, very long way back in my family tree to find somebody born overseas. But, that said, I am reminded of a traditional Irish blessing that is often said at weddings. I would like to dedicate that blessing to those Australians who very soon will be able to marry. I'm looking forward to being able to say to them: 'May the road rise to meet you. May the wind always be at your back. May the warm rays of sun fall upon your home. And may the hand of a friend always be near.'
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ): Thank you, Senator—
Senator HUME: I'm not quite finished, but thank you. I know you were moved by that moment of Irish sentiment! It is with great pride—truly great pride—that I commend this bill, the private senator's bill of my friend and colleague Senator Smith, to the Senate.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (16:24): I wish to indicate that I will be supporting the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 to legalise same-sex marriage, as I did when a bill was presented in 2012. That was a bill that failed because there wasn't a free vote allowed on both sides of the chamber. Given that there is on this occasion, I've got no doubt that this particular bill will pass. I think we have seen—I don't think it can be argued otherwise—an emphatic endorsement for a change in the law as a result of the postal survey.
That doesn't change the fact that the postal survey was unnecessary and, I think, in many respects, remained a divisive exercise. I take the view that it was expensive, and that, while the ABS was able to manage it well within its allocated budget, it was a proposition that should have been managed through this parliament. That's what we are paid for, and I think that's what most people regard as our responsibility to undertake. That's been the case on many, many occasions where this parliament has dealt with changes to the Family Law Act. In the past, we've actually dealt with changes to the Marriage Act itself, and it's been a matter of no great difficulty. I can't see why this matter could not have been dealt with in that manner.
There's no doubt, though, that Australians have declared where they stand, on what, to me, is a fundamental human right. We had a turnout of well-nigh 80 per cent. That is very, very high for a voluntary vote, and, by international standards, I think it's probably a record—a record of which we should be very proud. It tells us much about our experience in this country with the Australian ballot. It tells us a great deal about the value of the experience that the Australian people have had with compulsory voting. It tells us that nearly 62 per cent of people have supported the change in the law, which is an absolutely clear majority. In every state and territory, a majority have sought that change.
This bill, however, is a bill about a civil institution, and it's about extending civil rights. It's a bill aimed at updating the law to meet contemporary community values, and it's a bill about ending discrimination. It's not about religion. In fact, I am suspicious of laws that seek to regulate religion. The strong yes vote in the survey showed that people are not swayed by the scaremongers who have tried to present this issue about same-sex marriage as a threat to the freedom of religion, or, as they have sought to do, as an attack on family life. I think the Australian people understand that it is about neither of those things.
So I think we are entitled to ask: what will the result be of changing the law as the result of this bill? The truth of the matter is: some of our fellow citizens have been unjustly excluded from the institution of civil marriage, and they will no longer be. And that's all it is. I don't see it as any matter that goes much beyond that. The sky will not fall. Couples, including same-sex couples, will continue to raise families, as they already do. It's about the democratic rights and freedoms that Australians should possess. It also, of course, allows us to enshrine freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which will continue to be upheld. Religious institutions that celebrate a traditional view of marriage will not be required to change that view. No supporter of same-sex marriage has ever suggested anything to the contrary. The bill allows for ministers of religion and religious marriage celebrants to refuse to marry same-sex couples, but it rightly restricts special protections for religious freedom to the actual celebration of marriage itself.
Frankly, I won't be voting for amendments that seek to undermine other aspects of our civil rights in this country, including any suggestion that we should extend the right to discriminate on any other basis, or to wind back state protections of civil rights. It would be unconscionable to allow businesses to do what they cannot legally do now: to discriminate against people based on their gender or sexual preference, or on any other basis—such as race, for instance. Yet this is what the opponents of this bill have actually been arguing publicly. They are not only resisting a change in the law that will recognise a basic human right; they are demanding that human rights that already exist and are protected in law should lose that protection. It is not supporters of same-sex marriage—and it is not this bill—who are threatening the rights and freedoms of Australians. It is the people who have opposed this overdue change in the law, and they've done so at every stage.
Let's see what this law will actually change. I think this has really been a device to delay—and, again, transparently so—the inevitable. The cross-party committee that recommended this bill rejected those demands, and rightly so. The Law Council of Australia rejected them and warned that conflict with Australia's international human rights and obligations can't be tolerated, and it's clear that a great majority of the Australian people reject the proposition as well. The Australian people want the laws on marriage in this country to be fair and inclusive. I think, as a result of changing the law in this regard, Australia will be a fairer and more inclusive society.
Some people talk of traditional marriage and traditional family as if these things never change. They talk about these civil institutions as if they are locked in, frozen in time. Historically, of course, that is nonsense. The shared social understanding of marriage and the law on marriage have changed many times over the centuries. I think I made this point before, but it's worthy of being repeated. There was a time when the law allowed 12-year-olds to marry. No-one today would see that as anything other than child abuse. There was a time when violence within marriage was barely ever spoken about. No-one would regard that as acceptable today. There have been constant changes in our understanding of the relationships within marriage. There has been an evolving understanding of the nature of marriage, and in a democratic, pluralist society like Australia social institutions like marriage have increasingly been measured against the standard of human rights, as they should be. On that measure, excluding same-sex couples from the secular institution of marriage can no longer be tolerated.
In the language of the 18th century, the language of the Enlightenment, human rights—or natural rights, as they were then called—are inalienable. The state does not grant them. It has the role of upholding and protecting them, and that's what this bill does. It makes Australia a more equal society because more Australians will be able to enjoy fully another fundamental human right recognised even in the 18th century. The sad fact of life is that, in this country, there are still far too many people who run in fear of the Enlightenment. There are too many who seek to mock the aspirations of creating a compassionate society. Our Constitution, for instance, stands in sharp contrast to the principles that are embedded in much older documents, such as the United States Declaration of Independence. In fact, in Australia I'm sure many people on the right find it laughable that some think that the role of government is to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. I've heard them mock it. I've seen Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun so often argue the case that the pursuit of happiness is not the proposition that we should be engaged in, that the humanities have no role to play in terms of our research programs and that an understanding of the emotions is something we should not be part of. In the 18th century, this principle, which, of course, was written into the US Declaration of Independence, argued that it was a right which was given to humans by the creator. Humanists regard this principle, however, as an inalienable civil right, and I emphasise this. They believe that it is the fundamental responsibility of governments to protect that right. The right of people to marry the person they choose is one such right.
My party has allowed a free vote on this bill. I regard the social reform ushered in by the bill as an expression of Labor's historic task of extending the recognition of human rights. We don't, and I certainly don't, claim that we've always been successful in that task. We certainly don't claim any monopoly on morality, and I don't believe anyone in this chamber has the right to do so. But, as I said in the debate on the same-sex marriage bill presented in 2012, for more than 120 years Labor has relied on this one fundamental premise in terms of its operation. That premise was summed up by one of the Labor Party's earliest parliamentary representatives, George Black. He said that Labor's role was the making and the unmaking of social conditions. When our caucus voted to approve the bill recommended by the cross-party committee, we acted in accordance with that tradition. I'm therefore very pleased to be able to speak in support of the bill today.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (16:36): I rise to speak, as a proud co-sponsor, in support of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. My courageous colleague Dean Smith, who has been a brave point man on this historic amendment—which will pass or 'shall so hold', as the Prime Minister mispredicted about another matter—said in his speech earlier today that this 'is not revolutionary; it is evolutionary'. It reminded me that Gough Whitlam once told me this about a republic; he said a republic 'is evolutionary, not revolutionary'. That's what marriage equality is—evolutionary. But it has taken too bloody long, far too long. The same applies to a republic, but that's another issue for another day. Rachel Hunter, that actress from across the ditch, used to say, 'It won't heppen overnight, but it will heppen'. And now we know, after 61.6 per cent of Australia voted yes for marriage equality, it will 'heppen' here before Christmas—it must. The no supporters in this chamber and the other place must not use this debate as a filibuster or a Trojan horse. I will support the Attorney-General's amendments, flagged yesterday, to protect religious freedoms and to exempt marriage celebrants. But, if the same-sex marriage opponents try to block what is overwhelmingly the will of the Australian people with a slew of obstructive amendments, I will vote against them again and again and again.
Madam Acting Deputy President, may I ask for your indulgence today, in this unusual rainbow atmosphere of love and loyalty in the chamber, when I bend protocol a bit and pay tribute to the people here in this chamber most personally affected by the discrimination in the Marriage Act that John Howard so cruelly and calculatingly imposed on Australia 13 years ago in 2004, with the wrong-footed political acquiescence at the time of the Labor Party. To the people most affected, like Dean and Penny and Janet and Louise, I say: I'm sorry it has taken so long. I stood next to Senator Wong in the minutes before the result was announced. While the man from the ABS was doing his Rob Oakeshott impersonation, her inner tension was palpable. To me, that and her tears of relief, which were shared across this wide land yesterday, rammed home to me just what pressure and discrimination and unfair judgement LGBTQI Australians have lived under for decades, and for how long some of them have campaigned and struggled for this time to come.
Last night on Sky, on Paul Murray LIVE, I appeared with Professor Kerryn Phelps—the 'Kerryn and Derryn show'!—the former head of the AMA, whom I've interviewed a zillion times in a former life as a broadcaster. Kerryn Phelps said that she and her wife, Jackie, had been campaigning for marriage equality for 20 years. To be truly honest, if I had heard her back then, 20 years ago, talking about same-sex marriage, I would've said: 'No. What are you talking about? Marriage is between a man and a woman.' That's because, for years, for decades, I opposed same-sex marriage. That was 20 years ago, and it probably would've applied even 10 years ago. I stand here today as an Australian male who only a few years ago did think that that was the way the world was and should be—a neat and tidy status quo for heterosexuals. I'm sure that view was shared back then by a lot of Australians who voted yes in the postal ballot this time. I stand here today as a proud co-sponsor of this bill.
On this historic day, I want to go back to my road-to-Damascus moment, and maybe it will explain some things. I want to quote from something I wrote seven years ago for The Australian newspaper under the headline 'It was wrong of me to oppose gay marriage':
I WAS an opponent of gay marriage for years. I doggedly followed the ignorant, almost homophobic line without really thinking it through.
Marriage was only for men and women because that's just the way it was.
Forget the fact that loving relationships between same-sex couples lasted as long, if not longer, than many marriages, despite those couples swearing before God "til death us do part".
Only four years ago I wrote a book called You Are So Beautiful: the passion and the pain of relationships. There was a seemingly empathetic chapter called The Pink Revolution and in it I wrote: "Homosexual men and women have had, and many still have, added pressures in their relationships. There is the partner who won't come out of the closet. The partner who wants to keep it quiet because he (or she) doesn't know how to tell their parents. Even though you could usually bet money that a mother's intuition has already told her. A gay person whose lover won't-can't acknowledge their relationship must feel a bit like a mistress who doesn't exist in that partner's public world."
But when it came to voicing a strong opinion on gay marriage I wimped it. My editor, Anouska Jones, thought I should remove the whole chapter.
She said: 'Your attitude also comes across as ambivalent - as you openly admit - and I think that adds to the problem, as for the rest of the book you express definite, unswerving opinions on each theme that you tackle. For these reasons, I would advise not including it."
I did include it and eventually wrote: "I will admit that I have had difficulty coping with the non -traditional idea of a marriage between two men or two women but I am learning and I know that the day will come soon when it is as accepted and as protected as any other union." What a fence-sitting cop out.
It took two women - my wife and my ex-wife—
that is, my then wife, Chanel, and my ex-wife Jacki Weaver—
to convince me that my attitude was irrational and discriminatory.
And such discrimination is illegal because you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sex, religion or race. It is also morally reprehensible.
I also found my justifications increasingly hollow and unconvincing, even to me. It took me back to the days when my mother couldn't satisfactorily answer a question. After the third "Why?" she would respond: "Because it just is. That's why."
And that's about the best the opponents of gay marriage can come up with in 2010: it just is.
And that still applies in 2017. My article continued:
That is why I was surprised, disappointed and dismayed when Julia Gillard recently said that heterosexual marriage was not only her government's view but her personal view.
Now let me get this straight. And, I guess, straight is the operative word. Our new Prime Minister is an atheist. She doesn't believe in God, but she believes in the sanctity of God-blessed marriages except for gay people.
Sounds hypocritical to me. She lives with her partner Tim Mathieson, a condition the church would quaintly describe as "living in sin".
If the hairdresser with whom Gillard lives had been female I wonder if her views would be different? And where does Penny Wong stand on this? She is a cabinet member who has fewer civil rights than her colleagues, purely because of her sexuality.
But I did take in all of Senator Wong's sincere and intelligent comments today, and I now understand. I finally understand that she was right not to go out in what she called a brief blaze of glory—that's how she put it today. She decided to stay inside her party and lobby and fight for what we have ended up with today, and that is to her credit. It is a bill I'm thrilled to see her name on. My article from 2010 continued:
Gillard said: 'We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that it's recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman."
That statement came on the same day the female Prime Minister of Iceland married her female partner. In Mexico City, capital of a fiercely Catholic country, same-sex marriages and adoption by same-sex couples have been legal since March of this year.
In the US some states recognise same-sex marriages although those laws have been rolled back by referendum in places such as California. Closer to home—
as we heard from Senator Siewert—
the Labor-dominated territory government in Canberra legalised same sex marriages, but was overruled by the federal government, in the same way the Howard government blocked voluntary euthanasia in the Northern Territory. The Victorian Labor Party (Gillard's home state) supports gay marriage.
Gillard says her government (and Kevin Rudd's government) had taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples over matters such as social security benefits.
That was true, but that was not enough. My article continued:
But she is not going to scare the voters, especially the religious Right …
I was right when I predicted way back then that she didn't want to advocate anything that would upset the Right, the religious Right and the conservatives. My article continued:
The Liberals and Nationals are even more locked in. After all, Tony Abbott has admitted he feels "threatened" by homosexuals. That's weird. What's also weird is the strident opposition when most marriages in Australia are these days conducted by celebrants and not in churches, only about 10 per cent of Australians are weekly churchgoers, two out of three marriages end in divorce, and one in three Australian children are born out of wedlock. What are people afraid of?
The only encouraging thing for gay people is that they know their day will come. Equality will prevail. One day.
In conclusion, I said, seven years ago:
The only encouraging thing for gay people is that they know their day will come. Equality will prevail. One day.
Remember, how many African-Americans living in Georgia in the 1960s could even dream of a Barack Obama in the White House.
So I say: Australia, this is our Barack Obama moment. To the 61.6 per cent of you who voted yes, I salute you, and, Australia, I thank you.
Senator BERNARDI ( South Australia ) ( 16:48 ): I'm happy to stand corrected, but I think I'm the first person who openly campaigned against redefining marriage to actually speak in this debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I want to extend my congratulations to the 'yes' campaign. What matters in the end is how the Australian people voted, and you had an overwhelming victory. I congratulate you on the campaign. It was generally played out in good spirits, and I hope you recognise that, from our end of the campaign—the official 'no' campaign—we also sought to do the same thing.
A couple of years ago in a debate with Senator Wong at the National Press Club I said that if a majority of people in a majority of states voted to redefine marriage then who was I to stand in the way, and I stand by those words today. I've been called many things in this place, but a hypocrite is not one of them. I stand by those things and I accept that this bill is going to pass and that there are going to be many thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people who will be very happy at the transition from marriage being what it is today to being open to same-sex couples.
It's hard to argue with the joy that I've seen in people who I sometimes don't agree with—or who I don't agree with quite a lot. They're obviously very happy. It's a very personal experience. There's a sense of happiness in me that they're happy, notwithstanding I would have preferred a different result. But, having said that, I do want to just put on the record the genuineness of the concerns amongst many in the no-voting fraternity.
We've had this wonderful circumstance in Australia where our freedoms have often been taken for granted, and we've legislated to remove discrimination, which is also the right thing to do in many respects. But rarely have we had this great transgression on our traditional freedoms. I spoke about this in my maiden speech to this place, which was about how we're forced to choose between whose rights should prevail in an era of competing rights. In other places around the world, they have had legislated freedoms, whether freedom of speech or freedom of religion or other freedoms, and they've sought to get the balance right between anti-discrimination legislation and the freedoms that we need.
I acknowledge that the numbers are against us. You guys have the numbers to do whatever you want with this bill—to go forward. I would only ask that you consider some of our concerns. We don't want to rain on your parade. And it was a pretty big parade last night, I can tell you! So we don't want to rain on your parade, but we do want to protect religious liberty in this place—not to offend you and not to upset those who think that it's somehow an infringement on their rights, but to protect or codify the significant rights that have evolved over a very long time in this country.
You know that I'm a defender of freedom of speech, and I think that 18C is an obnoxious infringement upon that. It's the same sort of thing that I would argue in this case as well. We've had circumstances internationally where people's freedoms have been curtailed by activists in the same-sex marriage lobby, as they have by others. We've seen it in this debate as well, with Archbishop Julian Porteous. They are very real concerns, and I hope that in some way they can be addressed.
I also express the concern of many parents. It is not perhaps a place directly for the federal parliament, because education is a state based issue, and that's a principle of federation. but I do think there are things going on within our education system that parents feel uncomfortable about and feel are somewhat out of their control. Give some accommodation or consideration to the rights of parents—if they conscientiously object, whether for religious reasons or other reasons—to say, without making a fuss about it: 'I'd rather my child not be exposed to some of these teachings,' or to have some input into it. I think that would be a positive step forward.
I stand by my stance. I'm rarely for changing—though that might bring a smile to your face!—but I stand by the stance that I think there are unforeseen consequences in this. I'm happy to be proved wrong, to be perfectly frank. I'm struggling with the idea already, because, despite what Karl Stefanovic said, I've had two invitations to same-sex weddings already, both from people for whom I have enormous respect, one from someone with whom I've had a very longstanding friendship for many, many years. I'm not sure whether he really has been proposed to three times in one day, because he's not that handsome—that's how I would describe it! Anyway, I'm not going to mention his name, lest someone Google him! Look, it is what it is. I accept that I'm on the losing side of this argument—
Senator Dastyari interjecting—
Senator BERNARDI: That's why I didn't mention his name, Senator Dastyari. It's like why no-one says that you're anyone's friend! It is what it is. You guys have won an extraordinary victory. I ask, just simply, from the humble no voter, that you be mindful of their genuine concerns. They're not motivated by malice. They're not motivated by loathing or hatred. They're motivated by a desire to ensure that Australia can preserve and protect some of the things that make us really, really good. For 10 years in this place I've said that there are encroachments along the way, and I've been trying to push back against some of them. I can't push back against this one. I can only say: let's think of the principles, of the freedoms, that have built our country and made it fantastic. I have nothing but goodwill towards you, I am sure. To the same sex couples who want to get married: get married; have fun; do what you want to do. I hope you all have at least as happy a time as I've had in my 21 years of marriage. So, with that, I say thanks to the Senate.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:54): How good is it that we stand here today knowing that, after all the years of fighting for marriage equality, it's almost here? How good is it that the purposeful discrimination introduced by the Howard government 13 years ago will soon be dead and buried? Australia has voted for equal love, for equal treatment and for equal respect. I know what a proud moment it is to be able to publicly commit to the person you love, as I have with my wife, Kristin. Every Australian will soon have the same privilege. I'm especially proud that every single electorate in my home state of South Australia voted for marriage equality. Sixty-two-point-five per cent of South Australians voted yes. This is an unambiguous result and I would urge my state Senate colleagues, Senators Gichuhi, Bernardi and Farrell, who have so far indicated that they will not back this bill, to respect the wishes of our great state and, instead, vote for it. In fact, given that every state and territory voted in favour of changing the definition of marriage, every Senator should follow suit. This chamber could make history with a unanimous 'yes' vote, and that would be a very impressive scene.
As exciting as the results have been, I do however regret that we wasted $122 million of taxpayer money to confirm what we already knew. In 2004, when John Howard amended the federal Marriage Act to explicitly state that marriage be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, he didn't insist on a survey or a plebiscite; he simply took it to the parliament. Our current Prime Minister could and should have put forward legislation months ago to allow parliament to vote on the issue of marriage equality. This would have been the least expensive and least harmful way of ensuring that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are equal under the law. But the deed is now done and, with almost 13 million people completing the survey, at least there can be no arguing about the result. The people have spoken and we are here to do what Australians have elected us to do: listen to their wishes and enact their decisions on marriage equality.
It is worth taking a moment to appreciate how far we have come as a society in a relatively short time. Only two generations ago, being gay was a criminal offence. South Australia and the ACT were the first states to decriminalise homosexuality in the mid-1970s, but it took 22 years until it was decriminalised across Australia. Tasmania was the last state to hold out. It was still a crime as recently as 1997—just 20 years ago—and yet Tasmania has resoundingly embraced marriage equality. It is this thought of adaptability and commitment to fairness that makes me proud to be an Australian.
Incredibly, it was only recently that we took the next logical step to expunge the sting of criminal convictions. In 2013, South Australia was the first state to expunge convictions for homosexuality. New South Wales and Victoria did the same in the following two years. Queensland and Tasmania both passed legislation just last month, and Western Australia only introduced legislation to do so two weeks ago. I suppose it is better late than never. I still feel some disbelief that, as recently as the 1970s, eighties and nineties, we found the notion of homosexuality so confronting that we jailed and chemically castrated men who were only being true to themselves. We forced LGBTI people to live a lie. We forced them to conform, which not only brought misery to them but also often brought misery to the people they misguidedly married in their desire to fit society's norms. Thank God those days are well and truly over.
I respect that not everyone who completed the survey felt comfortable ticking yes and that the people who oppose same-sex marriage have a variety of personal and religious reasons for doing so. That's fair enough. We're all entitled to our views, but I am confident that the end of days predicted by the worst excesses of the no campaign will not come to pass. This moment is a line in the sand that acknowledges the obvious truth: we are not all cut from the same cloth. What is important is to support loving adult relationships.
Senator Smith's marriage amendment bill makes only a tiny change to the Marriage Act, but it will bring about a profound, welcoming and inclusive change to our society. It undoes the definition of marriage imposed during those Howard years. It will protect religious freedoms in relation to marriage by allowing places of worship to refuse to host same-sex marriages if this doesn't accord with their doctrines, and it will allow religious ministers and celebrants to refuse to solemnise a marriage if it affronts their religious beliefs.
I know many same-sex couples gave up waiting for Australian law to catch up to Australian opinion and went overseas to get married. This bill will finally allow their marriages to be recognised here. But same-sex marriage is not just about wedding rings and recognising love equally. Marriage also simplifies some of life's messy red tape and it will extend some important rights to same-sex couples. For instance, both people will automatically be considered parents of babies born through IVF rather than having to prove their de facto status. What makes me especially happy about what we are doing here today is how much this will mean to the children of same-sex couples. They will know that, in law, their parents are no different from other parents. They will know that their parents' love and respect for each other is truly recognised, that their relationship is valued and that their rainbow family is not in any way second class. This bill topples the final barrier in our law that discriminates against LGBTI people.
I note Senator Paterson had also drafted a bill, which sought to represent the views of the 38 per cent of Australians who voted no in the survey. I'm glad it did not see the light of day, because that bill did not respect the yes vote. In fact, it was an insult to it. How could we possibly enact a bill to end discrimination against same-sex couples only to enshrine it elsewhere, as Senator Paterson's bill sought to do, by making it okay to refuse a service to LGBTI people? Such a regressive step would only take us as a society back to an ugly place and would be a slap in the face to the community and, indeed, to anyone who is affronted by bigotry and discrimination in any form. Senator Smith's bill strikes the right balance. As I said earlier, marriage equality is such a small change in law but will have such a profound impact. It puts love above prejudice, and I truly believe we as a society will be better for it.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (17:02): I'm afraid I may disappoint a few people today—not that that's going be a first!—because normally I don't refer to notes. Normally I'll just say what comes into my head and what I've picked up in my ventures to get here. But today I want to dignify my contribution by referring partly to some well-thought-out written notes. Some might have thought they'd cop the old mic drop from me like the last time I got up and spoke about marriage equality in this country. I came in to make a 20-minute contribution and I think I got to 48 seconds and thought, 'I've had a gutful of even talking about this, because it has been 10 years.' I just walked off after making some comment about: 'I'll be at the Royal Hotel in Queanbeyan. Give me a call when you get your act together.' Thank goodness the country's got its act together finally—and what a magnificent outcome!
I'd like to begin by echoing the words of Senator Penny Wong yesterday when she said: 'Australia, thank you. Thank you to the millions of Australians who participated in this process, and thank you for voting for equality. You have resoundingly told the parliament that equality matters, and that means the world not only to me but to the many, many Australians who want to have their relationship recognised by the law and to those who support marriage equality.'
I am especially proud of Western Australians, who returned the second-highest yes vote out of all the states in our nation yesterday, where 801,575 Western Aussies voted yes—63.7 per cent. I must say how proud I was to hear that every single Western Australian federal electorate, the whole 16 of them, voted yes—a clean sweep for that great state of Western Australia. I've always been proud to represent Western Australia in this place, but today I'm standing here even prouder, if that's possible. I was in the room yesterday with Senator Wong, Senator Pratt and other colleagues to hear the results read out. While we all were a little nervous leading into the announcement, the feeling in the room afterwards, I have to tell you, was electric.
Now, as a homosexual man—sorry, as a heterosexual man—and I didn't mean to do that. Mind you, it wouldn't worry me anyway; I'm so excited, I got my words mixed up. As a heterosexual man happily married with two adult kids and a wonderful grandson—and I dearly love the lot of them—I will never understand what it's like to be discriminated against because of who I love. Many of us in this chamber will never understand what that feels like—I couldn't possibly understand that—and to say that people didn't feel hurt or weren't victimised throughout this campaign is, sadly, absolute rubbish. But, when I was waiting for the result to come through yesterday, I sympathised with everyone in the room who was from the LGBTIQ community.
While the result was and is fantastic, it is still a shame that it had to come to this. It's a shame that we had to spend $122 million of taxpayers' money unnecessarily on a survey to tell the parliament what we already knew, and it's disingenuous to think that members of the Australian parliament, whether they be in the other chamber or here didn't know what the feeling was out there. This has been a barbecue conversation for at least 10 to 15 years. This is not a topic that just popped up in this parliament. Communities, organisations and families across the country were forced—or had the opportunity—to make a choice. Some of them were forced to pick a side and were instantly labelled, depending on the position they supported. In some cases, this did pit good friends against each other. It led to arguments around the dinner table—I've heard them—and it led to many hurtful discussions from one side of the campaign about people from the LGBTIQ community based purely on who they love. I ask: how wrong is that? This just shows how wide-ranging the impact of this survey was on the Australian public.
Watching the looks on the faces of people in that room prior to the announcement, including our leader in the Senate and our champion of this campaign, Senator Wong, was, at times, heartbreaking. The people in that room were tired, some of them were hurt, and they were worried that their love would once again be rejected. But, when the results were read out, I've got to tell you what a genuinely happy moment it was. My ears are still ringing from the cheering that was going on around that room. Seeing Senator Wong's reaction and the looks of relief on the faces of everyone around me really made me appreciate how much this meant to each and every member of the LGBTIQ community and their friends and their families. I say to you all: Australia has told you that you matter, Australia has told you that you and your relationship should be equal, and Australia has told you that they want marriage equality—and what a magnificent thing that is.
Watching the news coverage yesterday of all the different parties and community events across our nation celebrating the outcome was purely fantastic. It was a historic day for our country. I've been told that there was quite the street party in Braddon last night—and I know Braddon well; I used to live in Braddon. It was attended by some luminaries from all sides of politics. It explains some of the dreary faces I've seen around the building this morning. I can understand why they're dreary, and I hope you had a good celebration. One person who shall remain nameless—that's you, Ben—said to me that they didn't think there were that many people in Canberra, the crowds were that big. They also said that the feeling in Braddon was unbelievable. Everyone was happy, some were still crying, and there was a lot of dancing. Most people there were strangers to each other, but the one thing that drew them all together, the one thing that brought them all out to celebrate, was love—and that is what this is all about. Love wins. Love will always win. And that is what we saw yesterday.
Each of us, throughout the campaign, would have had interactions with people from both sides of the debate. While I really don't want to go into detail of some of the revolting, disgusting, hurtful and plain filthy emails I received—and a lot of people are brave at the other end of an email—criticising not only my support for marriage equality but those in the LGBTQI community, I am truly thankful to everyone who I met along the way during the campaign. Today, I can't help but think of all of you who I either met in person or had conversations with either on the phone or through Facebook. This bill is for each and every one of you. This is the good part—this is really good—I even got a few wedding invitations via Facebook from some of my followers. I'm looking forward to the day we make this legal, so that I can send back my RSVP. I also can't help but think of those close to me who this bill affects.
For Ben in my office, the result yesterday and this bill mean that people want his relationship to matter. They want it to be equal and they want people like Benny and his partner, James, to have the opportunity to get married—and I do too, mate. I've known Ben since he was 16—he stalked me from his school days!—and I consider him to be a great mate. But, when we were talking about the postal survey, when it first came up, I was a bit taken aback when Ben said that this was the first time that he had felt personally attacked or disadvantaged by politics. I thought, for someone who has been in the movement for 10 or so years, how could this be so? With all of the elections he's worked on with me and others, surely he would have picked up something that he was passionate about. But then I realised: this campaign was different. This argument wasn't about cuts to the pension, cuts to penalty rates or other important issues which didn't directly affect Ben but were issues he could sympathise with; this argument was deeply personal.
At the end of the day, the survey came to be because the Prime Minister, unfortunately, didn't have the bottle to bring the debate into the parliament. I could go on and on and on, but today is a day where we're going to celebrate the outcome. I don't think it would be a great thing to throw barbs across the chamber when we are celebrating, and I won't, but, unfortunately, some in the government did put the relationship of Ben and that of others up for public debate, and we mustn't forget that. The survey put Ben in a horrible position, because it made him feel like, unfortunately, his government didn't think that he or his relationship mattered. That's how Ben felt. I would be deeply offended if I knew that the country had a say on who I could or couldn't marry. I married my wife 35 years ago because she was the only one that would have me! No, it was because I loved her and still do dearly—she was the only one who would have me, but! Why should it be any different for Australians in the LGBTQI community? Hopefully, through the passage of this bill, it won't be different anymore. The hurt was felt by each and every Australian from the LGBTQI community, and for this I say sorry. What the community did have, however, was each other, and the result yesterday truly was a team effort. Despite the hurt and the pain, what an immensely proud feeling to know that a majority of Australians, when our government sadly failed to do it, have stood up for you. Yesterday's results speak to Ben, Louise and everyone in the LGBTQI community. You matter, your relationships matters, and the majority of the Australian public want you to feel equal.
I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise a few people. This campaign was not a few people—it was millions of people—but there are a few I'd like to recognise. To Senator Penny Wong and Senator Louise Pratt: congratulations. To Senator Dean Smith: a lot has been said and a lot will be said. Good on you, Dean. This has been hard fought, trying, tiring and difficult—but look where we are now as a nation! You've done it. To Bill, to Tanya and to the Labor family, who have been steadfast in this campaign, I say well done. Once again I say to Senator Dean Smith, who introduced this bill: mate, not enough words can be said about you, and they are all heartfelt. I commend your courage, mate, and your determination in writing this bill. You should be extremely proud. Tiernan, Tom, Anna, Alex and all from the Australian Marriage Equality Campaign—look what you've achieved. You and your team should be immensely proud of what you've done for our nation. But I say to Tom and Anna especially: it has been a privilege to get to know you both over the campaign. It must be so rewarding to see the outcome after all that you have worked so darned hard for.
When I spoke on this matter last year, I spoke of how proud I was to walk my daughter down the aisle at her wedding. And I said that every parent should have the same opportunity as I did with my child, regardless of their sexuality or who they choose to marry. Once we make this bill law—and hopefully we're only a couple of days away—all parents across our country will be able to do this. As Senator Pratt said earlier, this issue is not just about people from the LGBTQI community. It's about their friends, their families, their supporters and their loved ones. This result and this bill show them that their loved ones matter. This result and this bill show them that Australia wants them to be equal, regardless of their sexuality.
We have all made it through this postal survey. Australians have done what their government unfortunately didn't do. But Australians have made their decision. They have told the government that they want marriage equality. It's now up to us to make this happen. I am encouraged. I have to say that this time yesterday, or a little bit earlier, I had fears of how the debate could slide into an even worse position than what I thought it possibly could prior to the postal survey's results. I want to support Senator Griff's statements, but, sadly, I don't know what was going through Senator Paterson's head. Fortunately, whatever it was has fallen out. Fortunately, we're not going to have that shocking debate that Senator Paterson's bill had the ability to take us down into. I don't know how anyone in this chamber could try and qualify that we can shift the nastiness to another argument to attack our gay and lesbian communities with the nonsense that we were confronting through that piece of rubbish that's been thrown away. Thank goodness for that. I don't know if I could sit here and say we fought for years to eliminate discrimination, whether it be against our First Australians and now our LGBTQI communities or against workers, foreigners or women. I felt: 'What would be next? Should we start on fat people? Should we start on people who are bald?' That's just how stupid it could have got. So I congratulate the grown-ups within the coalition and the government who came to their senses and got rid of that nonsense.
I want to throw a challenge out to the LGBTQI community. It doesn't matter if you have to sink down on one knee, slip a ring in your partner's almond daiquiri—I don't know if anyone drinks almond daiquiris anymore!—or hire a skywriter to say, 'Please, marry me, Penny,' 'Marry me, Louise,' or 'Marry me, Ben,' or whatever their name is. Get out and do it. I did it 35 years ago. It's the greatest thing I've ever done, and I don't think that I should be the only one who should have the ability to say that they've been happily married for 35 years. Please, do it. Make the most of it—enjoy, rejoice, celebrate, brag. What a fantastic time for Australia; we've got ourselves out of the Dark Ages!
I do not look forward so much to the debate across the chamber that may come, but, when I heard Senator Bernardi's words, which were very, very dignified—and Senator Bernardi was one of the spear-chuckers for the 'no' campaign—I thought that, if Senator Bernardi can have the humility to say, 'Let's get this done and, if we have a difference of opinion, can we come to some arrangement?', we're in a pretty good place; there's no doubt about that. So to Dean, Penny, Louise and everyone in the community: congratulations! Congratulations, Australia. Thank you so much. Let's roll our sleeves up. Let's get into it. Let's just get it done.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (17:20): This is not my first speech. I speak to this chamber tonight overwhelmingly filled with happiness. Yesterday, at 10 o'clock, Australians voted for equality. They voted for justice and they voted for love, and I am just so thrilled that they did so in such overwhelming numbers.
I think any statement in this chamber would be remiss if it omitted to thank the thousands of campaigners across the country who worked so hard to make it possible—those who doorknocked, those who phone banked, those who worked on social media and those who had conversations with their mums and dads and friends. Sometimes those conversations were deeply uncomfortable, but they stepped up. They understood what was at stake and they worked to ensure that we had a resounding yes—and I cannot offer them a more profound congratulations than the one I do today. You made sure that this country acted and joined so much of the rest of the world in saying, 'Love is love is love is love.'
However, this happiness is tempered with a sense of disappointment inasmuch as, although I am thrilled that this chamber will now debate and decide and, God willing, pass marriage equality, the months of campaigning were not necessary. It was not necessary to seek the opinion of every Australian on the fundamental human rights of their fellow citizens. It was not necessary to subject thousands of fellow Australians to bigotry and hatred and abuse. It was not necessary. The tears weren't necessary. The fear wasn't necessary. The effort wasn't necessary. The self-justification in the face of those who have already brought such havoc in people's lives was not necessary.
It was brought about because of what can only be named as the most profound act of political cowardice that this country has seen in many, many decades. It was an abdication of leadership by this federal government on a scale which has scarcely been seen in history. And, although I am deeply moved, and was deeply moved, by contributions such as those made by Senator Smith and those made by Senator Wong, I cannot speak tonight without thinking how this debate may have played out, how sooner we might have reached this blessed moment in our history, if all sides of politics had shown more leadership at different points in time. It is very sad that it was, in fact, the people of Australia who had to show leadership rather than those within this chamber and in the other place. For every single one of us, if, on reflection, we can see that, at some point in time, we might have spoken more strongly or acted with more purpose to convince colleagues in this place that this was a reform that was needed, and if we find that we could have done more as parliamentarians to spare our LGBTIQ friends and family members the horrendous experience of the last few months, then we should, in our private capacities, do what we can to offer our apology.
Having said that, I would now like to turn, on a personal note, to a couple of friends of mine back in WA who have campaigned on this issue for the last couple of months. Before I was unexpectedly catapulted into this place, I was working with a group of community members to try and get our local council, Rockingham council, to make its support clear for marriage equality. Of course, this moment that we arrive at now comes on the back of decades of campaigning not just by individuals or wonderful organisations such as Australian Marriage Equality but by unions, businesses and local governments, who, though it was not within their power to legislate, recognised that it was within their power to speak. And so they spoke. That's what I was dedicating my time to before I ended up here. So I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks and congratulations to every single member of MMERIT, Motion for Marriage Equality in Rockingham: It's Time, particularly to Marnie and Honor, who got engaged a couple of weeks before I ended up here and will now be able to turn that wonderful moment of happiness into something which is recognised under Australian law.
I would also add that I am very aware that, although this is a wonderful moment, a moment of celebration, as it should be, there is a real need to recognise that this is not the end of the journey when we think of LGBTIQ rights in Australia. So many have contributed—and I want to thank Senator Rice and Senator Siewert for their incredible contributions to this debate and join with Senator Sterle in proclaiming the hope that the debate over the next couple of weeks, however long it goes on for, turns into a celebration of the most wonderful aspects of our community. I hope we spend the next few weeks—but as quickly as we can—speaking to the better angels of the Australian nature.
I would also like to add to that I think it is important that, when this debate is over and this reform is law, we recognise that it is not the end of the road, that the struggle for equality does not always go forward. And so it is, and remains, important that we who have fought for this reform, and that we who have achieved this reform, now safeguard this reform and ensure that our LGBTIQ community members are protected in all aspects of their lives. The Greens have always been with the community. I'm sure there are people listening tonight, and I would like to say to you directly that we are still with you, that we are still here for you and that we will always fight with you. I thank the chamber for its time.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (17:29): I'm humbled and privileged to make a contribution to this historic debate. I want to, at the outset, congratulate those who have campaigned and fought for change in this area on their victory. I think they have engaged in a worthwhile and, as others have described, lengthy debate to bring themselves to this situation, and I do want to genuinely congratulate them on what they've achieved. This is what politics should be about: advocating and seeking change. Sometimes that can be frustrating and take time, but we have got to the situation here where we will legislate change, and I do want to genuinely extend my congratulations to those who achieved that, notwithstanding the fact that I thought it was best not to change the Marriage Act.
I do think that change has been achieved and will be enshrined in law through this process because there have been some very strong arguments in favour of change. Even though I came to a different point of view, overall there has been a very strong argument put and that is why it resonated with the Australian people and has ultimately manifested itself in this result. I do accept, and I have said this during the debate, that the strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that two people love each other and they should be able to marry and solemnise that love in the way that others can.
That argument has won the day, but I would also hope as we proceed through this debate that we don't simply ignore those Australians who did vote no, and not have the respect and ability to recognise that there were strong arguments on the other side of the debate too. I don't think it's possible or likely that we could have had nearly five million Australians vote no without there being strong and well put arguments on the other side of this debate too. That's not to say we have to agree with each other or each other's conclusions, but I do think, as citizens of Australia, that we want to come together and unify after debates such as these, and a fundamental element of delivering that unity is respecting each other's different opinions and views. I have always tried to respect those who had a different opinion on this matter from me, as I do in every debate that comes to the floor of this chamber, and I hope such respect can be returned.
I do, however, disagree with the view that somehow having this debate was incorrect or unfortunate. I think there's a lot of truth in the epigram of Joseph Joubert, a French moralist, who said:
It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.
We are lucky in the country to live in a place where we are all able to debate weighty and major issues. I know I might be a minority in this place, but I do believe firmly that as a result of this survey we have a stronger and more likely ability to unify as a nation if there is goodwill because all parties have had an opportunity to have their say. I do want to say, as someone in this place who has been in favour of traditional marriage, there are many Australians who don't feel that their views on this matter have been well voiced in the Australian landscape, be it through the media, be it through this place as well, and this process has given them that opportunity. I do want to thank many sections of the media who I think approached this debate in a dignified and balanced way, including, may I say, and I put it on record, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—not someone I would always necessarily ascribe fair and balanced views to, but I do applaud them for their coverage over the past few months. They have approached this in a fair and balanced way and that has given a level of validation from all areas of Australia to the result of this vote and the ultimate decision that will be made in this parliament to legislate for same-sex marriage.
I have always said through this debate that I, myself, would respect the will of the Australian and Queensland people, who I represent, and I will do that through this debate. I do hope that I can vote for a bill that changes the Marriage Act. I have said throughout the debate that I cannot, in good faith and good conscience, support a bill that would otherwise compromise fundamental human rights. I might seek to explain that a little during this contribution but I ultimately hope that I can support the will of the Queensland and Australian people. I do think that is a prospect with some of the discussion we've had here today, but I also flag that the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill, as presented, does not go far enough in protecting fundamental freedom of religion and parental rights.
I quickly want to return, though, to the strong arguments from the 'yes' side that the love of two people should be recognised and that there should be an ability to solemnise that relationship. I have always accepted that is a strong argument. It is a strong emotional argument and it has strong logical connotations to it, too, but I would also like to repeat that it's important to understand why some people voted no. I fundamentally reject the view that those on the 'no' side did so out of any ill will to those of a homosexual persuasion who would like to solemnise a relationship. I certainly didn't. My position, and the position of many millions of other Australians as well, is that there is something fundamentally unique and distinct about a male and female relationship. It does not make it better or superior or in any way above a homosexual relationship, but it is fundamentally different. In my view that is why, independently, human tribes, human civilisations for millennia, long past and since we have recorded history, have settled on a cultural institution that has involved marriage between one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. This is not a religious concept, although religions have often adopted or co-opted such institutions into their own tenets. In almost every civilisation it has always been something that has seemingly organically emerged as human culture has thrived and developed.
I do make the point that this is a significant change. It is a significant change to what human civilisations over the millennia have previously espoused as the definition of marriage. We also must, and I hope we can, recognise that the vast majority of countries in the world continue to retain a definition of traditional marriage. Indeed, on the latest count that I have, more than 85 per cent of countries in the world retain a definition of traditional marriage. That may change over time; although the prospect of that happening in the immediate future in some parts of our region, the Asia-Pacific region, is probably slim because they remain quite socially conservative cultures—not Judeo-Christian ones, but socially conservative ones; that's for sure. As I said earlier, I hope that the respect that we hopefully have for each other here in this place and that we have shown in this country can also be extended to our near neighbours and fellow countries, which will probably most likely retain a definition of traditional marriage. As I said, I do not see that it is in any way a rejection or diminution of a homosexual relationship. It is just a different cultural institution that some societies will continue to want to have as a means of flourishing family life.
I also want to make a brief comment, and only a brief one, that, while my support for traditional marriage is one rooted in my overall conservative viewpoint of the world—that we should respect the institutions that have stood the test of time and seek to understand them before we change those long-standing institutions—I also am increasingly concerned about the breakdown of the family unit in the modern world. This is a separate issue to what we are debating here; however, I do think we must recognise here that once the Marriage Act is changed it will represent a fundamental shift in how our society, over many decades, has viewed and taught what marriage is in our society. We will have gone from a situation many decades ago where marriage was most often something that was entered into for life and would not be broken until the passing of one of the partners to one where it is much more, and often, temporary. Although the statistics are often hard to get at, given their longitudinal nature, possibly about half or maybe more than half of marriages end in divorce and are not seen through to the end of life. It has always been the right of society to make that change—and we're not going back to the previous world; that is certainly not the case—but I recognise that that has not always and everywhere been a good thing.
The ideal environment for a child, the ideal environment for any young Australian, is to know and love their biological mother and father, if possible. That is not always the case; that is not always able to be delivered for a variety of reasons, some completely out of anyone's control. But I still hope and believe that that is the ultimate horizon that is aimed for in life, that a young person can know and love the two people who created them and created their life. I think it's something fundamental about what it is to be human to have an instinct, a desire, to know and love one's biological mother and father. Again, I want to stress that that is not saying to any extent that a different form of parenting is inferior or incorrect, and that extends to adopted parents. Adopted parents provide loving and secure homes to many, many people. But it doesn't change the fact that I think there's something fundamentally human, instinctively in all of us, to know and love our biological mother and father.
I hope that Australian governments and Australian society generally continue to strengthen the family unit and try to ensure that as many Australians as possible do have that opportunity. As a father, and a proud father, there's an almost unequal responsibility on the father in these situations not to run away, to stick around. I think it's very unfortunate when men do that. It's a negative part of male culture that has emerged in our society that many are not meeting their responsibilities as fathers. If you're lucky enough and fortunate enough to create a life, you should bear up to your responsibilities of looking after that person and make an effort towards rearing them.
Returning to the issue of respect, I do hope that there can be an understanding that the reason why amendments may be sought to be moved is to protect fundamental human rights. Some of those amendments, and I'm not going to go through all of the amendments right now that I may move, come from the viewpoint that it is a fundamental human right that a mother, father or parent should be able to decide and determine the moral and religious education of their children. That is not something that I'm necessarily asking to debate right now. It is something that the Australian government has signed up to and enshrined in international human rights law. Specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Politics Rights, at article 18, states:
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
That is something we have; it's part of our law to uphold that in this country. Any change to the Marriage Act, including in the bill before us, will not reduce or change that commitment we have made in international law. But I think there are some issues here that provide an opportunity for us to recognise that commitment and to ensure that it is upheld in any changes to the Marriage Act. I do think there is a strong desire in the Australian community to provide parents with that autonomy.
Others have quoted the views of the Australian people in the broad and the majority opinion here. I'm not seeking to make this argument only because the majority of people have that view, but it is the case that all the polls show the majority of Australians want to see strong protections for religion and human rights and also for parental choice. In polling over the weekend, about 60 per cent of Australians would like to ensure we have strong protections for parental rights in any change to the Marriage Act.
There is also a general protection for religious freedom in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in article 18 subsection 1:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
This is something we signed up to in the 1970s as a country, but of course it's also a fundamental building block of Western society, of the democracy that we have here today. It's not a small cause of the society we have had, but the fight for religious freedom over many centuries and years. Indeed, one of the reasons, perhaps, we have been fortunate enough to have had the flowering of Western democracy in our country and many countries in the Western world is the ultimate conclusion of battles for religious freedom, stretching back many, many hundreds of years. I hope that that fundamental freedom as well can be protected through this debate, particularly as it might manifest itself in marriage ceremonies, including those involving not just ministers of religion but also celebrants.
Finally, I want to not just congratulate but give very genuine well wishes to those who will now be able to get married under the change that will occur. There was a strong argument for this particular change, and I am sure, given the outpouring of happiness and joy as a result of the change, that the effect will be multiplied over many months as people are able to have their relationships recognised under the law. I think that will be something that all Australians can join in and share and recognise. I very much hope that those people that will be able to have that opportunity will take out of this now a happiness that could otherwise not have been provided by action in this place. I thank the Australian people for the respectful way this debate has been handled. It's a testament to the strength of our country and the strength of our democracy, and I hope we continue to go forward on that basis throughout this debate in this chamber.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (17:46): I'm very proud to rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill today. My contribution will be unusual because it's going to be cut in half, by about 10 minutes, to get into it. I will be honest—I'm not prepared. I'm going to talk out the debate to six o'clock tonight. But sometimes those contributions are the best and they come straight from the heart. I wanted to start by saying that the speeches I heard this morning, from my colleague Senator Janet Rice and from Senator Smith, were amongst some of the best speeches that I've heard in this place. I was very moved by both speeches. I do have a thing about Dorothy and rainbows that relates to my mother watering the plants outside my room when I was a child. She used to sing that when I was waking up.
I thought the contributions today, and the tone of the contributions, were beautiful. It's not often in this place that we get to be emotional. I suppose, based on the opportunity of voting with our conscience, we can speak our minds. I think this debate is going to be an interesting moment for those who voted for us and who follow us to get a good sense of who we are and the bases of our characters. And it also interests me that, when I think back to the old Roman Senate and, prior to that, to Greece and Athenian politics, it was a time when passion, debate, reason and logic could persuade people. We get so locked into our political positions here, but I sense that this debate will give us all an opportunity to listen and make up our mind because we have that freedom to vote with our conscience. It's a very rare thing here, and I feel extremely privileged to be able to cast my vote as part of a party which has campaigned for equal marriage now for decades.
To you, Senator Smith, if I could interrupt you—I know it's been a very long and emotional day for you, as it has been for Senator Rice. I don't have any quotes off the top of my head, but they do say that one crowded hour of glorious life is worth an age without a name. I believe that you have had yours today, and I hope that this chamber and the next place makes sure that the spirit of your contribution and the words spoken today are actually translated into action and into law.
I pay tribute to all the campaigners everywhere, and not just in this country but also overseas, who have been leading on this issue and who have suffered through the ardour of discrimination, threats, violence and a whole lot more. I want to pay tribute to them first and foremost. I pay tribute to Rodney Croome, from my home state of Tasmania, who, along former senator Christine Milne and my colleague Senator Nick McKim—who will be giving his contribution when the Senate next meets—very proudly championed reform in Tasmania. It almost beggars belief that, in my home state only decades ago, it was illegal to be homosexual. You were thrown in jail if you were determined to be homosexual. It's very, very difficult to believe that it was only 20-something years ago, but it is actually the case. Rodney, Nick and Christine got together and they not only removed that horrendous discrimination—almost unbearable and unthinkable discrimination—but also managed to bring in some of the best anti-discrimination laws in the country in Tasmania. They worked across all political parties to do it. In old, conservative, stuffy Tasmania they got a great outcome by working together, and it's a really good model for what we should be doing here in this place.
I would also like to pay tribute to Bob Brown. In Bob's recent writings he's talked about his journey as a young gay man and the kind of mental torture he felt over this issue of not fitting in. In his latest book he talks about the time in his life where he got to the point where he was going to commit suicide. He was a medical student here in Canberra. He wasn't sure how to do it and, and he thought about it. He knew he wasn't a good swimmer and that Lake Burley Griffin was very cold, and he decided that the best way to do it would be to swim across Lake Burley Griffin, because he knew he wouldn't make it. It was at that point in his life when he faced the question, 'What am I gonna do? I can't live with this,' that he decided that the three things he needed most to get through life, to build a flimsy raft to carry him across the turmoil, was to remain optimistic, to take action and to be himself. They were the three things that he decided he needed. That went on to form a big basis of his activism in his later life. This issue is deeply important to him, as it is to many LGBTIQ people around the country.
I'd like to pay tribute to Janet, who has led our team into this debate, and her partner Penny, who I am very fond of. She's also one of the world's most important climate scientists, which I think is also incredibly important to note. I also pay tribute to my colleague Sarah Hanson-Young, who's not here tonight, who was the Greens' representative on same-sex marriage for many, many years and is very well respected and acknowledged in the LGBTIQ community here in Australia.
There are so many others, but they're just the ones that come to mind. I think it's important to acknowledge the fight and the struggle that they've had over a number of years to get us to this point. When this passes, and I'm sure that it will, it will be a crowded hour of glorious life for all of us—maybe more than just one hour. When this passes, if the party is anything like what we saw in Braddon, Canberra, last night, then we'll be having an early Christmas celebration.
I would also like to say—and I truly mean this—that one of the best speeches that I've heard in this place was in 2012 when we had this debate the last time. I was a new senator and I sat in here and I listened to former Senator Faulkner speak on this issue. He talked about this issue being a lot of things and there being a lot of layers of complex emotions but that, ultimately, the most important thing was to ensure that everybody was equal before the law. It's a pretty simple concept. If we discriminate on the basis of your sexual preference or your gender identity, then why can't we discriminate on the basis of your race or your religion or the colour of your skin or your football team? The list goes on. He said it's a fundamental principle that everybody in a democracy should be equal before the law. This issue has hurt a lot of people over a long period of time. They may not choose to get married, but it's the right—their right—and the choice that's absolutely critical to these people.
So I think, at the end of the day, we can talk about our religious differences, but we really need to look at what the basis of a democracy is, and that is all people being equal before the law. When I ran with ex-senator Christine Milne in 2010 on her ticket for the Senate in Tasmania, I was tasked with going as a Greens candidate to an Australian Christian Lobby forum in Launceston. I remember that it was a very colourful night, and when I got in there I figured that I wasn't going to get any votes, so when it was my turn to talk I stood up and I said, 'Look, I don't expect any of you are going to vote for me, so I'm just going to speak my mind tonight and tell you what I think.' I talked about the issue of people being equal before the law and discrimination and other issues, and it occurred to me that there was a lot of fear in the room, which, to me, has always been the opposite of love. So I said that. I said, 'Gee, there's a lot of fear in this room. Where does that come from?' To be honest, I might have agitated them a little bit by saying that if Jesus were alive today he would have been a Green, because of his preachings of love. I did grow up in a Christian family and I was a practising Christian till my early 20s, so it's something I am schooled in and I do believe deeply. Interestingly enough, at the end of the night when I talked to people individually I had a few people say to me, 'You might've got a few more votes than you thought, Peter.'
I met one of the local pastors who I agreed to have a breakfast with because he said, 'I want to talk to you about that fear.' We went out and we had a 2½-hour-long breakfast where we discussed this issue, and I've got to say that I think I get where the fear comes from—the fear of the unknown, the fear of change—but I also was quite surprised and quite shocked with the focus on the sexual aspects of same-sex couple relationships. It was something I wasn't expecting, to be honest. I think it's understandable that people fear change. They have grown up with their own views and they have their own ethics and their own philosophies, but I still think it's a fundamental right in a democracy for everybody to be equal before the law.
With only a few minutes left to go, I will say a little bit about the plebiscite. It was a victory yesterday. It was an ugly one, because so many people have suffered throughout this process, and it was a very expensive one. But, nevertheless, it was an important victory, because nearly eight million people around this country sat around their coffee tables, around their kitchens, in their bedroom, out in a cafe—who knows where—and they filled in that form. They filled in that form and they said, yes, we should legislate for equal marriage in Australia. Because it's an unusual exercise in our democracy to have a postal plebiscite and people have gone to those efforts to vote and recognise that, I can tell you that there are going to be very high expectations on us. Eight million people around the country are going to want to know why we haven't legislated for same-sex marriage. At the end of the day, this will be a reform that I am going to be very proud to have been a part of. It certainly will be a reform that I'm going to talk to my children about, and I'll tell them that I was here to witness it.
I'm looking at the clerks. I saw the interview with Rosemary Laing before she left. She was sitting in the chair when the Mabo decision came down. It was a very emotional time for her. I certainly hope that all of us are going to be able to share in the gravity and the momentousness of this decision.
Debate interrupted.
DOCUMENTS
Australian Electoral Commission
Consideration
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (18:02): This is not my first speech. Under the terms of the Electoral Act an Australian Electoral Commission election funding and disclosure report is required to be published by the Australian Electoral Commission after every federal election. It is worth noting that page 17 of the report on the 2016 federal election details the requirements for disclosure of donations above the disclosure threshold. For this federal election the disclosure threshold was $13,200. I want to say, firstly, that that is a ridiculously high amount for a disclosure threshold. To suggest that a donation of $12,000 is somehow minimal and doesn't need disclosure is ludicrous. It's very unfortunate that the Howard government decided to massively increase the disclosure threshold back in the day, back when I was in this chamber previously. To see that still here is very disappointing. The Labor government—I think under former senator John Faulkner—attempted to bring this back down to $1,000. It wasn't successful, because it couldn't get through the Senate at the time. Certainly that's a goal and that needs to occur.
This report does give a reason to emphasise just how inadequate the political donations and disclosure regime is and, indeed, the whole legal framework around political donations across Australia is. This is particularly relevant in my home state of Queensland. We have a state election at the moment and the corrupting influence of political donations has been a major issue, as it was in the local council elections in 2016. We have seen an inquiry in Queensland by the Crime and Corruption Commission flowing out of that 2016 election with a whole lot of, frankly, seriously dodgy donations in councils in South-East Queensland. That led to recommendations to crack down and, indeed, to ban donations from developers in Queensland with regard to local government. The state government, to its credit, took up that recommendation and sought to expand it to the whole state electoral regime. Unfortunately, it chose to go to an election before that law was legislated, so we still have a circumstance where the future of that anticorruption measure to ban developer donations is in the balance. That's another example of why donation reform is so crucial.
From the Greens point of view, we need to move much further than that, because political donations to both the major political parties continue to be enormous. Queensland Labor and the LNP regularly approve major developments at priority development areas that make huge profits that just happen to be for corporate donors. Star Entertainment Group—formerly Echo Entertainment Group—the developer of the Queen's Wharf casino, had received 10 per cent of the public land in the CBD for their massive overdevelopment there. They donated over $60,000 to Labor and over $60,000 to the LNP. There was a donation of over $114,000 to the Springfield Land Corporation, which is in the city of Ipswich, a city that unfortunately has become synonymous in recent times with alleged misconduct by their mayor. We've seen donations of over $330,000 relating to the Toondah Harbour development, which is in a very environmentally sensitive area on Moreton Bay shore.
This is the reason the Queensland Greens have given such a priority to this issue in this state election campaign. The Greens have promised, within the first hundred days of being in parliament, to move to break the dodgy corporate stranglehold on Queensland politics. If elected, within the first 100 days of that parliament a Queensland Greens MP will move to amend Queensland laws to ban dodgy corporate donations from property developers, from banks and from gambling and mining corporations; to strengthen the crime and corruption commission, the anti-corruption watchdog; to stop government ministers offering cash for access meetings; and to stop ex-politicians walking into plush lobbying jobs in retirement.
In a Queensland context, it is clear that, unfortunately, the days of Bjelke-Petersen—with the notorious brown paper bag donations—are not over. The donations might not come in brown paper bags, but they are certainly still coming. The community can see the impact of them very, very clearly. The Greens believe we need to put a cap on the size of any political donations and a cap on electoral expenditure. This, again, is in accordance with what has happened in New South Wales, and I commend the work of our New South Wales Greens colleagues and, particularly in this federal context, my colleague Senator Rhiannon. Also, the Crime and Corruption Commission itself recommended caps on election expenditure in a local government context. That is something the Greens also believe needs to be implemented at state level and is something we will push forward in the state parliament if the Queensland people choose to elect the Greens in this coming state election.
Question agreed to.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Consideration
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (18:07): My colleague Senator McKim has already spoken on this document and moved a motion that the Senate take note of it. I'd like to also emphasise the very unfortunate decline in the performance of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in regard to not just its well-documented human rights abuses—and let's not mince words here; that is what is being done under the auspices of this department—but also, frankly, its financial approach, which is incredibly wasteful and has seen extremely critical reports from the Auditor-General and others. It may be a coincidence; it might not. I suspect not. I don't wish to reflect negatively on all employees of the department. Many, I know, do the best they can. But, in regard to the culture and the direction of that department, which obviously the minister has to take ultimate responsibility for, it does seem to be clear that there is a belief that they are above the law, and that is something that should concern every Australian. Whatever view they might have about any individual aspect of immigration policy, to have a section of the government think they can operate above the law and basically turn themselves into a quasi-military operation, a militarised operation, should be extremely concerning to anybody that cares about civil liberties and freedoms for everyday Australians, let alone all the other many millions and millions of migrants, both permanent and temporary, that we share our country with and that make such a massive economic contribution to our nation, and have done so for decades.
When I was a senator in this chamber previously, over 10 years ago, as senators may recall, there were scandalous situations involving an Australian citizen, Vivian Solon, and a permanent resident, Cornelia Rau, both of whom were illegally detained by the immigration department. One of them was illegally deported, even though they were an Australian citizen. There was a Senate inquiry at the time; Senator Collins may recall that. It was so flagrantly outrageous and it showed a department out of control. It was so obvious that the minister at the time, Senator Vanstone, acknowledged openly in this chamber that there was a problem with departmental culture. Somehow or other, that seemed to have just happened without any knowledge from the relevant ministers at the time. The people who had caused the cultural problem also thought they were the ones who should be able to fix it up—nonetheless, at least acknowledging that things had got out of control, with a culture of being punitive. Ignoring the law and having the compliance regime put above everything else had got out of control. By no means was everything fixed up, but at least there was a recognition that there were problems, and some steps were taken to try to ameliorate it.
If you compare that to what is happening now, it is just chalk and cheese. It is 20 times worse now under the current minister and the current department and its leadership. The culture is quite deliberately focused on being punitive and seeing immigration as a threat and a security issue, when immigration has been such a key part of the prosperity, freedom and diversity of this nation. It is a key part of what it is today. To have that fundamental part of the Australian fabric and the Australian economy being compromised and put at risk by this ridiculous, compliance focused, punitive department with disdain for the law is a serious problem. It is manifest most obviously in the horrendous treatment and the deliberately inflicted harm and suffering of the people on Manus Island and on Nauru. I join with my colleague Senator McKim, and all my Greens colleagues, Greens members, campaigners and the rights movements around Australia in condemning that unequivocally.
It has been pleasing to see some movement in the Senate this week and in recent times from the Labor Party in recognising and at least supporting motions that we should accept the offer from New Zealand, at least with regard to the people on Manus Island. Whatever the attitude people have about the wider policy issues involved, we need to just get them out of that situation. We have a country that is willing to take them. The government, all along, have said, 'We are looking for other resettlement options.' Well, they have a resettlement option right there in front of them and yet they are still not taking it. That, more than anything else, demonstrates that it has never been the intention. The intention has been to deliberately make an example of these people and deliberately inflict suffering on them for political purposes and, I might also say, at massive expense to the taxpayer. It is money that could be spent for the benefit of the entire community. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:
The following orders of the day relating to documents were considered:
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC)—Report for 2016 17. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)—Federal election 2016—Funding and disclosure report. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Human Rights Commission—Report for 2016-17. Motion of Senator McKim to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Australia’s welfare 2017—Thirteenth biennial report. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)—Report for 2016-17. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document agreed to.
Climate Change Authority—Report for 2016-17. Motion of Senator Rice to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection—Report for 2016-17. Motion of Senator McKim to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 2016-17. Motion of Senator Rice to take note of document agreed to.
Moorebank Intermodal Company Limited—Report for 2016-17. Motion of Senator Rice to take note of document agreed to.
Removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children—Resolution agreed to on 10 May 2017—Letter to the President of the Senate from the South Australian Minister for Education and Child Development (Dr Close). Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Consideration
The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Biosecurity risks associated with the importation of seafood and seafood products (including uncooked prawns and uncooked prawn meat) into Australia—Report. Motion of the deputy chair of the committee (Senator O’Sullivan) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Availability of new, innovative and specialist cancer drugs in Australia—Government response. Motion of Senator Moore to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Economics References Committee—Report—Cooperative, mutual and member owned firms—Government response. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Ketter) to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Accommodation for people with disabilities and the NDIS—Government response. Motion of Senator Brown to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Government Procurement—Joint Select Committee—Report—Buying into our future: Review of amendments to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules—Government response. Motion of Senator Kitching to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Community Affairs References Committee—Future of rugby union in Australia—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Siewert) to take note of report agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee—Final report—Growing evidence of an emerging tick-borne disease that causes a Lyme-like illness for many Australian patients—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Design, scope, cost benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Participation of Australians in online poker—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Rice) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Red Tape—Select Committee—Effect of red tape on environmental assessment and approvals—Third interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into Australia’s trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom—Interim report. Motion of Senator McKenzie to take note of report agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—Third interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Gallacher) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—Whistleblower protections—Report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Interim report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Progress report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition—Report. Motion of the deputy chair of the committee (Senator Gallacher) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Red Tape—Select Committee—Effect of red tape on tobacco retail—Second interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Leyonhjelm) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Red Tape—Select Committee—Effect of red tape on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol—Interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Leyonhjelm) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Murray-Darling Basin Plan—Select Committee—Report—Refreshing the Plan—Government response. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
The PRESIDENT (18:14): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Jones, Mr Lindsay Gordon Bower
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (18:14): I want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to an old friend of mine who sadly passed away. Lindsay Gordon Bower Jones passed away on 9 October. Lindsay was a former assistant secretary of the party in Queensland back in the 1980s and 1990s, but when I first met him in August 2000 he was someone who had left the party office but had come back in a temporary capacity to help out on campaigns. I first started at the Queensland branch in August 2000 as a 22-year-old and I met Lindsay Jones, who had just turned 60. Lindsay was someone who I was a really good match with because Lindsay knew everything there was to know about campaigning, but he knew absolutely nothing about technology. So we were a very good match. I was able to help him with computers and mobile phones; he was able to take me under his wing in terms of campaigning.
August-September 2000 was an interesting time in the Queensland branch. Basically, the day I started at the party office an article appeared on the front page of The Courier-Mail alleging all sorts of vote rorting had gone on in the Queensland ALP. Of course, everyone would know that the Labor Party don't get up to those sorts of things, but the allegation was there nonetheless. It's fair to say that Lindsay Jones, who had such a long history in the party, knew every secret everyone had inside the Queensland ALP. So he was certainly someone who was an integral player in the party at that time. For an inexperienced 22-year-old, I probably learnt more about internal politics in those two or three months that the Shepherdson inquiry ran than I have in the 17 years since. It was a brutal period, but it was interesting and insightful for me that Lindsay Jones never lost sight of the bigger picture—and that was winning the state election, which was due imminently. And what a role he played in that win in 2001, especially on the Gold Coast.
Lindsay was integral in Labor winning seats on the Gold Coast for the first time since 1989. I can recall one phone call we got from Lindsay on the Gold Coast. I was with Andrew Fraser, who went on later to become the Deputy Premier in the Labor government. I was working on that election at the time. Probably two weeks out, Lindsay said: 'You need to get down to Mudgeeraba. You need to have a drive around. This seat is going to elect a Labor MP.' Being the young guys who knew everything, we looked at the pendulum and, at the time, Mudgeeraba was on about 20 per cent. Andrew Fraser went down there, did a bit of letterboxing and—sure enough—on election night it was one of the seats that we picked up.
The history books would look back at that election result in 2001 and say it was a real cinch and one that Labor were always going to win, but anyone involved knew the reality of it—that it was a really tough election. Winning seats on the Gold Coast and the remarkable role that Lindsay played in that was something that actually sustained Labor governments across 2004, 2006 and 2009. The role Lindsay played in that election campaign really created a modern legacy. If you think about the current election campaign that we've got underway in Queensland, I know how much Annastacia, as Premier, would love to have someone like Lindsay helping out on that election campaign right now.
When I knew Lindsay, he was never one to seek the limelight or acclamation for his achievements, like many of us in politics do, particularly when campaigning. I recall in 2001 he came back from Parliament House after a new MP had shouted him lunch and handed him a framed photo of the 66 MPs who had won election that year. Lindsay threw it straight on my desk and said, 'Straight to the outhouse.' He was never one to seek acclaim. But he was always someone who was scrapping for resources. My memory is of him leaving the office late at night after raiding the stationery cupboard with two boxes of envelopes under his arm as he raced out the door. Lindsay, who was in his 60s at that stage, was certainly not someone who moved very quickly and he was pretty easy to spot. He was dedicated to doing his best for those campaigns.
Some images of Lindsay I can't escape, but sometimes I wish I could. One is the spa bath at his old house in Ashington Street at West End. While sharing an office every morning, it would often start with a conversation about the current political events. Lindsay would always start with, 'As I was saying to Norma in the spa last night—'. Lindsay in a spa is not always the image you want in your head whilst drinking your morning coffee, but you also got an understanding of how important the relationship was between Lindsay and Norma, and you got a sense that Lindsay never did much unless he'd talked it through with Norma beforehand, whether it was some sort of political event or whether it was any decision that they were making in life. I also learnt how important family was to Lindsay, who would do anything for his family and was incredibly proud of them all.
I have so many fond memories of Lindsay Jones—driving down to the Gold Coast at 80 kilometres an hour in the right-hand lane while people zoomed past us hurling all sorts of abuse and beeping their horns; the phone call where his sense of urgency was contagious. 'Mate, mate, are you with me?' He'd often fall asleep in the chair in my office where he found a really comfortable place to lie down. He had a really healthy plumber's crack. And he kept working just to top up the super. So every election campaign he'd come back. He was always saying, 'I'm just here to top up the super.' But he was always doing it for the benefit of the party.
I remember when my now colleague Milton Dick, as predecessor as state secretary, was, one day, driving back from Bundaberg to Brisbane—which is about a four-hour trip. They were just about to head out from Bundaberg when Milton turned to Lindsay and said, 'Lindsay, how did you first get involved in the Labor Party?' Four hours later, they turned up in Bundaberg while Lindsay still had a head of steam about his involvement. He was someone who joined just after the '57 split, so the history of the Queensland branch was something that Lindsay had experienced and knew very well. I also recall the Saturday morning horseracing tips that I would get from Lindsay. They were completely hopeless, but I would back them out of loyalty. Every Saturday he would ring and give his horseracing tips which he told me were a certainty.
But he was also, for me, a conduit to the past. I think about all the people who worked with him whilst he was at party office on and off for such a long period: Jackie Trad, the current Deputy Premier; Andrew Fraser, a former Deputy Premier; Milton Dick and Jim Chalmers from the other house; current minister in Queensland Shannon Fentiman; and a backbench MP Linus Power. We all grew up with Wayne Goss as Premier. That was our experience. But Lindsay was someone who really taught us that whilst you're in government you need to make the most of it. He was that reminder of the past that it isn't always a Labor government in Queensland and the need to make the most of your opportunities. Whilst I'm not speaking for all of them that were influenced by Lindsay, I have no doubt that, like me, we use his skills, his ideas and his lessons every day in this place and in the work that we do as representatives of the people. He was such a tremendous influence on so many people for such a long time.
In recent years, since Lindsay retired, we'd have lunch or coffee regularly. These were less frequent after I left party office because Lindsay lived very close by. But it says so much about Lindsay that, at his memorial service, there was a part of his life that I really hadn't fully appreciated. One of the speakers at his memorial service was Steve Haddan, who wrote a book on the history of Brisbane rugby league. He spoke glowingly of Lindsay and his involvement in rugby league, but also as a teacher at Toowoomba Grammar. He spoke about how at Lindsay's wedding to Norma—and they had a long relationship together—that he had a groomsman like Alan Jones. He coached Toowoomba Grammar to their first athletics championship. I knew of his involvement in the Labor Party, but he had such a remarkable life outside of the Labor Party—that was a real eye-opener for me.
The last time I saw Lindsay, I took him to a speech that Steve Haddan was giving about the history of rugby league in Brisbane. Afterwards, we went and had lunch up at Paddington, where we talked politics, just like we'd done for 17 years. It was such a great opportunity for me, and something that I will look back on so fondly—that we had that one last opportunity to do something that we had been doing for 17 years.
I'd like to pay tribute to Lindsay. He was an insightful and passionate visionary. He was someone who was a friend to so many people and a mentor to so many people, and particularly women MPs in Queensland. He was a really instrumental driving force in getting so many women elected to parliament. My thoughts are with Norma, his wife; Glen and Meg, his children, and their extended family at this time. Rest in peace, Lindsay Jones.
Australian War Memorial: Indigenous Artwork
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (18:24): This is the first opportunity I've had to congratulate you on your overwhelming election to preside over this very important states house, Mr President.
Tonight I'd like to speak about an experience I had earlier today. This morning I joined my colleague Senator Patrick Dodson, Dr Brendan Nelson, the director of the Australian War Memorial, several senior male artists from the APY Lands and military representatives at the Australian War Memorial to officially unveil a painting that depicts the significance and importance of 'defence of country' for Aboriginal Australians. In late 2016, the Australian War Memorial director, Dr Nelson, commissioned the APY Lands Arts Centre Collective to create a work that portrayed the importance of defence of country for Aboriginal Australians.
The APY Lands are in my home state of South Australia and they are home to seven thriving arts centres. More than 500 artists work in these centres and they create a range of paintings and objects. Today I was honoured to join 19 of those artists to celebrate the unveiling of this really important artwork. It's five metres by two metres in size and is a truly remarkable and imposing painting. The symbols in the painting represent a myriad of complex things, like rock holes and trees in the landscape, and how they are depicted as protectors of the Indigenous way of life. The tree symbol is the symbol of a male soldier, and the spears represent the weapons that the soldiers carried. It refers to a history of warfare that has spanned many thousands of years.
The artists spoke very passionately this morning about their inherent connection to country that had inspired this work that was created by these 19 artists over a period of four days. Indigenous Australians, as we all know, have a very proud history of serving our nation in the Army, in the Air Force and in the Navy. Going back as far as the Boer War, the world wars, the Vietnam War, Aboriginal Australians have defended their ancestral roots in lands far away from their own, as did many new Australians. The painting unveiled today was, for them, a reminder of the equality that exists on the battlefield, because, irrespective of politics, race and religion, we are all Australians. And we honour those who, in every sense, have fought to defend this land.
Today's unveiling was a reminder to me of our respect for all Australians who have served to protect the land that we now take for granted as being free. Earlier this year I was also very happy to see Howard Hendrick bestowed with the French Legion of Honour Medal by the French government on Anzac Day. Mr Hendrick flew more than 30 missions with the Royal Air Force over Europe during the Second World War and participated in Operation Overlord, the allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. Mr Hendrick is from the Riverland region in my home state of South Australia, where many soldiers settled following the world wars.
It was fantastic to attend the unveiling at the War Memorial today. And, of course, this followed Remembrance Day last Saturday. In my discussions with Senator Dodson on the way back from the unveiling, it was interesting to learn how extraordinarily proud we can be of these artists, because of the amount of passion that they put into the development of this amazing artwork, the representation and depiction of what it actually means to Indigenous Australians and the sacrifice that they made abroad for the protection, love and respect of their cultural and spiritual lands.
The artwork is now on permanent display, and I'd certainly encourage all of my colleagues in this place and the other place, and all Australians, for that matter, to go to the War Memorial and not only view this amazing piece of artwork, which is such an important reminder and depiction of a major part of our war history, but also honour the more than 100,000 service men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice, in addition to the current serving members of our forces and their families. I pass on my very sincere thanks to the Australian War Memorial for making today's event possible and to the artists and the people of the APY Lands for creating such an amazing artwork.
Pine Gap
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (18:29): I'd like to speak tonight about something that's happening right now in Alice Springs involving a number of people from my home state of Queensland. It is a trial that's occurring about some people who conducted a peaceful protest at Pine Gap quite recently. The Pine Gap spy base has been in operation now for just over 50 years. This original Pine Gap agreement with the US government was signed in 1966. In September last year, several hundred Australians from a range of ages, backgrounds, professions and faiths gathered in Alice Springs to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of that Pine Gap agreement and protest against it. They have continued part of what has been a very long tradition of protest regarding the Pine Gap spy base. It is worth emphasising that the role of this base, as a part of the global war machine, has increased dramatically in recent times, so those concerns that were expressed by many protesters through the eighties, nineties and early parts of this century are more valid than ever.
If I could quote esteemed academic and one of the foremost experts on this issue in Australia, Professor Richard Tanter has said:
Pine Gap literally hardwires us into the activities of the American military… So whether or not the Australian government thinks that an attack on North Korea is either justified, or a wise and sensible move, we will be part of that… We’ll be culpable in the terms of the consequences.
And, potentially, we will get the blowback of the consequences. Let me emphasise that. That says 'whether or not the Australian government thinks that it's a good idea what the US might decide to do in regards to an attack on North Korea on any other nation', not the Australian people. We don't get a say in that. The Australian people don't even get a say when our own government decides to go to war, but at least that's an open statement. At least we can talk about it and ask questions in parliament, even if the people can't have a direct say. But on this and what the US government might do, neither the Australian people nor the Australian government have a direct say.
This is relevant not just for any potential attack that the US—under the leadership of President Trump, no less—might decide to do on a whim one day but also for what is happening now. It is a well-established fact now that the Pine Gap spy base is a key part of enabling an extensive number of drone attacks, which have been documented even by the US government themselves—the ones they've admitted to—to have been responsible for the death of thousands of civilians under former President Obama, former President Bush before him and the current president as well.
I would like to quote Malala Yousafzai, the esteemed young woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize and inspired people around the world to stand up against terrorism and the Taliban, who shot her in the head and tried to kill her for the crime of going to school. When she got that peace prize and had that audience with President Obama, she asked him directly: 'Please, stop dropping those bombs from those drones. You're just making things worse. You're making the wars worse. You're making terrorism worse.' She, unfortunately, was ignored, but that request from her was a request to our government as well—and the Australian people—because we are part of that via our continuing agreement with Pine Gap. That is why I express strong support for those people who have protested throughout the years and decades, including last year.
It is appropriate for me to pay tribute to many parliamentary colleagues of the past who have been part of that—and, perhaps, a reflection on my own not-common situation of being a former representative here with the Democrats and now with the Greens. I note at least a couple of other senators: Senator Jean Jenkins and Senator Janet Powell, who were with the Democrats and who also subsequently joined the Greens and ran as candidates down the track, and Senator Vicki Bourne. And, of course, there have been many Greens, including Senator Scott Ludlam and Senator Jo Valentine—the very first Greens' senator in this chamber. There are many others who have continued to be part of providing support for the peace movement and who have expressed extreme concern about the role this base plays in continuing and expanding war and death around the globe—and, scandalously, alongside that, the absolute zero information and zero say the Australian people have over it.
We've heard in the context of a very different debate this week a lot of talk about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Last year, as part of those protests there, six Australian citizens entered the grounds of the Pine Gap base to sing songs and pray. That was the extent of their protest. It was very much a faith based protest and clearly a non-violent protest. They were arrested, as occurs in these circumstances, but, unlike in almost every other circumstance where such protesters have been charged with trespass, this government and the current Attorney-General chose, and proactively chose, to prosecute these citizens for unlawful entry under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, a Cold War act that was drafted to secure areas for British nuclear testing. That was the purpose of it, but it has since been expanded to enable the protection, and almost ultimate total secrecy, of this spy base in the middle of the country. It was an explicit decision of this Attorney-General to prosecute these people. Right at this minute the trial is happening, and the Commonwealth is explicitly seeking to jail these people. That's the sole reason the Attorney-General is using this act: to try to get these people jailed, potentially for up to seven years, for praying and singing songs of lament about the death that is enabled by the Pine Gap spy base.
I fully appreciate that some in the chamber and some in the community do not support the intent of these Christians, but no-one could doubt their sincerity. I certainly can't. I know a number of them: Margaret Pestorius and Andrew Paine, who I know very well, in particular, are very committed and very effective young peaceful activists; Jim Dowling, who has been a peace activist in Brisbane for many years; as well as Tim Webb and Franz Dowling—and also Paul Christie, who was arrested separately. I can vouch and do vouch and will vouch personally for the peaceful intent and the genuine commitment to peace of these people.
I join with over 70 Australians who put their names to an open letter to Senator Brandis, which was published last Saturday in the Saturday Paper, calling for clemency, because right at this minute the Commonwealth is doing the exact opposite: it is seeking to get significant jail time for these peaceful protesters. Since the time of these protests, even more information has come out about the key role that Pine Gap plays in drone warfare and in enabling, increasing and expanding war and, clearly, in exacerbating the fulcrum and the conditions that enable terrorism to develop further. So, I join with those Australians in calling on the Attorney-General to reconsider his action, to call for clemency, to seek to ensure clemency for these peaceful Christian protesters and to respect those calls for freedom of peaceful expression, freedom of peaceful political communication and freedom of peaceful personal expression of religious beliefs. I seek the leave of the chamber for the open letter to Senator Brandis to be incorporated in the Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Open Letter to Attorney General Senator George Brandis - regarding clemency for the Pine Gap "Peace Pilgrims"
We seek your urgent intervention to protect the right to freedom of speech, expression, political communication and of religion for six Australian citizens who face up to seven years in jail for a peaceful protest in which they were praying and playing musical instruments.
In September 2016, several hundred Australians of diverse ages, professions and creeds gathered in Alice Springs to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Pine Gap Agreement.
As part of the peaceful protests near the facility, five Christians prayed and played a musical lament, regarding the role of Pine Gap in war-fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria. They were arrested.
The peaceful and symbolic ceremonies conducted by Margaret Pestorius, Tim Webb, Franz Dowling, Andrew Paine, Jim Dowling, as well as Paul Christie (arrested in a separate incident), were intended to bear witness to the death and suffering of civilians as a result of United States military operations, including drone assassinations, facilitated by surveillance conducted at Pine Gap.
Since their peaceful protests, more evidence has emerged detailing the role of Pine Gap in the activities that concerned the Peace Pilgrims. It implicates Australia in extrajudicial drone assassinations in countries with which we are not at war, in nuclear weapons targeting and in illegal mass surveillance.
Three months after the protest, you authorised the prosecution of these concerned citizens for 'unlawful entry' under the Defence Special Undertakings Act 1952 (Cth).
That legislation was drafted at the height of the Cold War to secure areas for British nuclear testing, and it permits prosecutions to be held in secret, and for records of hearings to be destroyed, imposing penalties of up to $42,000 and 7 years in jail.
This prosecution occurs as Australia prepares to serve on the UN Human Rights Council and when UN Rapporteurs have criticised policies, laws and actions of your government that undermine freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the right to protest. These are fundamental civil rights, and they are profoundly important when governments are engaged in the sort of conduct which Pine Gap facilitates.
Five of the defendants are devout Christians. Their faith impelled them to give voice to the teachings of peace and love for humanity and creation found in the Bible.
In this case, where Australian citizens were doing no more than praying and peacefully expressing dissent, prosecuting them is not only grossly inappropriate but a shocking waste of court resources.
We, the undersigned, urge you to exercise your discretion to direct this punitive, disproportionate and expensive prosecution be discontinued before the matter comes to court in Alice Springs on 13 November 2017.
Jennifer Robinson, human rights lawyer, Doughty Street Chambers
Ben Oquist, Executive Director, The Australia Institute
Antony Loewenstein, independent journalist and author
Alex Kelly, documentary filmmaker
Melinda Taylor, international criminal lawyer
Rebecca Peters AO
Julian Burnside AO QC
Scott Ludlam, writer, designer, activist
Asher Wolf, journalist, founder Cryptoparty
Dr Giordano Nanni, founder Juice Media
Kellie Tranter, lawyer and human rights activist
Benedict Coyne, President, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Anthony Kelly, Executive Officer, Flemington & Kensington Community Legal Centre Inc.
Dr Helen Caldicott, President, Beyond Nuclear
Professor Brian Martin, University of Wollongong
John Pilger, journalist
Mark Zirnsak, Director, Justice & International Mission, Uniting Church
Elizabeth O'Shea, lawyer
Professor Tilman Ruff AM
Father Peter Maher OAM
Archie Law, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Tim Lo Surdo, founding director, Democracy in Colour
Richard Tanter, Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne
Annette Brownlie, Chairperson IPAN
Romina Beistseen, Secretary CICD
Helen Razer, writer and broadcaster
Professor Robert Moody, Melbourne University
Shirley Winton, Spirit of Eureka (Victoria)
Jeff Sparrow, writer, editor and broadcaster
Dr Margaret Beavis, Medical Association for Prevention of War
Andrew Farran, international lawyer
Dr. Alison Broinowski, writer and former Australian diplomat
Father John Pettit OCSO
John Menadue AO, businessperson and former Australian diplomat
Cam Walker, National Liaison Officer, Friends of the Earth
Rob Stary, criminal defence lawyer, Adjunct Professor of Law Victoria University
Bernard Keane, politics editor, Crikey Brett Dean, Composer, Viola player
Professor Peter Norden AO, Fellow, Australian & New Zealand Society of Criminology
Dr Tim Sherratt, University of Canberra Chris Drummond, Theatre Director
Paul Barratt, Former Secretary, Dep't of Defence, President, Australians for War Powers Reform
Donna Mulhearn, writer and activist
Harold Wilkinson, Quaker Peace and Legislation Committee
Anne Sgro OAM, President of Union of Australian Women Victoria
Professor Mary Heath, Flinders University
Dr. Peter Burdon, Associate Professor,
Tim Singleton Norton, Chair, Digital Rights Watch
Greg Barns, Barrister, Former National President Australian Lawyers Alliance
Richard Broinowski, President, AIIA NSW
Associate Professor Debra King, Sociology, Flinders University
Denis Doherty, national co-ordinator, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition
Dr Hannah Middleton, peace and justice activist
Mary Kostakidis, journalist Frank Moorehouse AM, writer
Roger Clarke, UNSW, ANU, Australian Privacy Foundation
Amanda Tattersall, Host, ChangeMakers
Tim Hollo, Executive Director, the Green Institute
Senator Richard Di Natale, Leader of the Australian Greens and Senator for Victoria
Adam Bandt MP, Acting Co-Deputy Leader, Australian Greens and Federal Member for Melbourne
Senator Janet Rice, Senator for Victoria Senator Lee Rhiannon, Senator for NSW
Senator Rachel Siewert, Acting Co-deputy Leader Australian Greens, Senator for Western Australia
Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Senator for Tasmania
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator for South Australia
David Pledger, artist, curator
Join the signatories here: https://closepinegap.org/letter/
I thank the chamber for that. I ask all senators to consider lending their support, privately if they wish, to this call to the Attorney-General seeking a different approach. A significant number of the many people at every one of these protests have been peaceful protesters who sought to simply express the message of the 'Prince of Peace', as Christians call Jesus, and who ask that those Christian values, which we so often hear talked about, including by many in Senator Brandis' party, are actually lived out in practice and not just in word.
All of my other Greens colleagues put their names to this letter. I certainly express my support for these fellow Queenslanders. I'm not a religious person, but I'd make an exception by adding some prayers for their wellbeing and the outcome of their case and for a change in policy with regard to the dreadful part of the global war machine that is the Pine Gap spy base.
Senate adjourned at 18 : 39
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk pursuant to statute:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislation (FRL) number. An explanatory statement is tabled with an instrument unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk.]
Corporations Act 2001—ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Competition in Exchange Markets) Amendment 2017 (No. 1) [F2017L01467].
Health Insurance Act 1973—Declaration of Quality Assurance Activity under section 124X—QAA 5/2017 [F2017L01468].
Lands Acquisition Act 1989—Statements describing property acquired by agreement for specified purposes [2].
Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Act 2017—Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Rules 2017 [F2017L01469].