The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 15 February 2018, from 9.30 am.
Environment and Communications References Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 5.30 pm, for the committee's inquiry into Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup Peninsula.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.50 pm.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 14 February 2018, from 4.30 pm.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Senator MARTIN (Tasmania) (12:01): I seek leave to make a short statement relating to my political party status.
Leave granted.
Senator MARTIN: Although I stood as a member of the JLN, I wish to notify the Senate that I will now be sitting as an Independent. In doing so, I intend to carry on a proud tradition of Independent representation in this chamber. I intend to treat each issue on its merits, and my door will always be open to everyone, but I do warn you I will be fighting for Tasmania.
BILLS
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:02): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill puts in place a number of changes arising from the 2017 budget, including price disclosure arrangements, but it also represents a significant win against this government's continued attacks to make health more expensive for every Australian. With the 2017 budget, the government finally dropped their senseless measure to push up the price of prescription medications for every Australian by up to $5.
Labor will be supporting this bill because we know how important access to affordable health is, including the critical and life-saving medicines on the PBS. The price reductions enabled by this bill will deliver savings to the budget and price reductions to consumers. But we note serious concerns that the government is not being up front with Australians about whether they have already spent the savings that were negotiated as part of this bill.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is one of the hallmarks of Australia's universal healthcare system, a system that is the envy of many countries across the world. Labor is incredibly proud of the PBS. It was first established in 1948 by the Chifley government and has been in place in various iterations ever since. Labor fought to create the PBS. We have fought to strengthen the PBS and we will always fight to protect the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is only through the PBS that most Australians can afford to access the medicines that they need.
As I've flagged, there are serious concerns about whether the savings in this bill have already been spent. This bill represents around $1.8 billion in savings. But with the new listings in the budget and throughout the year, it's possible these funds have already been exhausted. The government needs to be up-front about this. Labor have repeatedly questioned the government on the existence of these savings, but they have failed to provide adequate information. We also note that the government tried for three years to increase the price of all PBS medicines, even for pensioners. Their 2014 budget measure would have increased co-payments by $5 for general patients and 80c for concessional patients. Only Labor's opposition in the Senate prevented the Liberals from implementing this policy, and, while they've taken it off for now, we know they will introduce it at the first opportunity. So, while we support this bill, we will continue to guard against the government's broader policies on medicines and Medicare.
This bill makes a number of changes to the pricing of medicines and drugs. The existing five per cent price reduction that applies for single brand drugs on the F1 formulary on the fifth anniversary of listing will be extended for another two years, now applying until April 2022. There is the introduction of two new anniversary price reductions for drugs on the F1: a 10 per cent reduction after 10 years of listing on the PBS, and a further five per cent reduction after 15 years of listing. On 1 June 2018, medicines that have already reached their 10-year or 15-year anniversary by that date will be subject to catch-up reductions, and, subsequently, anniversary reduction days will occur on 1 April of each year. The bill increases the price reduction that applies on listing the first additional new brand of a medicine. When a first new competing brand is listed alongside an existing brand of an F1 drug, both immediately have their prices reduced. This bill will increase the reduction from 16 per cent to 25 per cent.
The bill adds new provisions around ministerial direction for price reductions, with previous price reductions able to be taken into account before a statutory price reduction is applied. The bill also adds a new measure around price disclosure arrangements. These arrangements mean the drug companies must report data on sales, with the sale price information used to adjust the price for all brands of a medicine. The new measure provides that, after a medicine has had seven full cycles of price disclosure data collection and reduction days, the threshold for price disclosure price reductions will increase from the current 10 per cent to 30 per cent. Finally, the bill allows a company to list another version of its own original brand without being subject to a new brand price reduction.
While much of this bill focuses on enabling pricing changes for medicines and drugs, it also makes a notable change to the so-called Pharmacy Location Rules. Since 1990, rules have existed to limit how close a new pharmacy can be to an existing pharmacy. These rules have a sunset clause. In the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement, this bill will remove the sunset clause, meaning existing arrangements will continue post 2020. Labor will not stand in the way of this change.
In conclusion, as we've said, more affordable medicines are good for the budget and for consumers, and we acknowledge the work of the industry in agreeing to the savings. While we support this bill, we will continue to note our concerns that the government is not being up-front about whether the savings have already been spent. We also note that investment in medicines and the PBS must be made in tandem with broader investment with health. The government has consistently attacked health at every turn. Despite saying at the last election that he had 'listened to the community concerns around health', the Prime Minister has failed to drop a single part of his Medicare freeze. In fact, the government's freeze won't be fully lifted until 2020.
This has a particular impact in communities where bulk-billing is lowest, such as my home state of Tasmania, where only 73.9 per cent of unreferred GP visits are bulk-billed—more than 10 per cent lower than the national average. Average out-of-pocket costs to visit a GP in Tassie have now become more than $36, up almost $6 since the conservatives were elected. You can't boast about making medicines more affordable while keeping measures in place that are driving up out-of-pocket costs and making health less accessible for every Australian.
Labor is incredibly proud of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and we will always fight for it. Today we tell the government that every dollar of savings generated by the passage of this bill must be re-invested in new medicines.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:10): I'd like to thank Senator Polley for her contribution and Labor's support for the bill. I also thank Medicines Australia, the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia for their efforts in developing the agreements with the government.
I would also like to make particular mention of the contribution made by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The committee's consideration of the bill included a number of questions on the proposed new power for the minister to exercise discretion in making certain pricing decisions. At the recommendation of the committee, additional information regarding the operation of these provisions has been included as an addendum to the explanatory memorandum. The addendum also contains further information in relation to transparency and scrutiny of written determinations made by a minister using discretional powers. I can confirm that these determinations will be made publicly available via registration on the Federal Register of Legislation. This is in addition to the publication on the PBS website.
I thank the senators for their interest and support, and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:12): I move:
That:
Schedule 5, Part 1, page 49 (lines 2 to 7), to be opposed.
[Australian Consumer Pharmacy Authority]
I have some questions for the minister. Minister, this removal of location rules, or the sunset clause on location rules, has been the subject of multiple inquiries, including one by the Productivity Commission. Can you provide an explanation to the Senate as to why those reviews, which have invariably recommended removal of location rules—and in particular the Productivity Commission's recommendations—aren't being applied?
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:13): Thank you, Senator Leyonhjelm. The pharmacy location rules are a longstanding and fundamental part of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as we know it today. In 1985, there were just under 5,500 pharmacies in Australia, and an inquiry conducted by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal in 1998 found that there was a marked inconsistency in the location of community pharmacies supplying PBS medicines. It found that many urban areas had clusters of pharmacies while access in rural and remote communities was relatively poor, with significantly lower pharmacy-to-population ratios. For some rural and remote communities, the distance to a pharmacy made it difficult or expensive to access PBS medicines.
The introduction of location rules in 1991, with the first Community Pharmacy Agreement, resulted in a restructure of the industry that reduced the number of pharmacies, in the short term, but encouraged greater efficiency and economies of scale in individual pharmacy businesses. The objective of the pharmacy rules, and the government sees no need to change this, was to encourage a widely distributed network of PBS pharmacies that matched the demographic spread of the Australian community.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:14): Thank you for that, Minister. I'm Chair of the Select Committee on Red Tape, which recently examined this issue in an inquiry, and the committee was told much the same thing. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the same people wrote the submission to the committee as just wrote your response to my question. But the committee was unable to determine how restricting the right to establish or preventing the establishment of clusters of pharmacies in metropolitan areas would somehow help access to pharmaceuticals in rural and regional areas. Nobody was able to provide a coherent answer to that question. On the other side of the equation, of course, is that clusters of pharmacies are not inherently bad. Indeed, clusters of food shops often result in better choice and lower prices. Clusters of clothing shops are not at all uncommon and similarly result in better choice and lower prices. So I'm wondering if you've been provided an answer to the question as to how avoiding clusters of pharmacies in metropolitan areas somehow helps access to pharmaceutical medicines in rural and regional areas.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:16): The objective of the location rules is to encourage a widely distributed network of PBS pharmacies that matches the demographic spread of the Australian community, and I'm advised that there is certainly evidence that the distribution has improved. Since June 2013, the pharmacy-to-population ratio in rural localities has in fact been better than the pharmacy-to-population ratio in urban areas.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:17): What my amendment would do would be to remove something which is quite unnecessary in this bill we are considering. The rest of the bill is fine, but this rather sneaky little provision removes the June 2020 sunset clause that regulates the location of pharmacies and establishes whether an application to establish one can be granted.
There have been seven reviews, if I'm correct, since 2000 into these Pharmacy Location Rules. I don't think any of them have found the Pharmacy Location Rules to be well founded. Certainly the Productivity Commission didn't think so. The Grattan Institute has warned about a 15-year cycle of review that's creating 'public cynicism and disengagement'. It argues:
Pharmacy regulation is overdue for reform, not further review with implementation stymied by vested interests.
The Department of Health, on the other hand, says:
The Location Rules ensure that the community pharmacy sector remains viable and able to meet consumers' needs throughout Australia, including … in rural and remote areas …
It just defies logic. The Australian Medical Association says pharmacy rules are unnecessary. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia says, yes, the pharmacy rules are necessary, but on the other hand 'they prevent our members from establishing pharmacies'. Indeed, the only industry group that the committee heard from that thinks the pharmacy rules are a good idea is the Pharmacy Guild. The Pharmacy Guild is comprised of existing pharmacy owners—so, as someone once famously said, 'You would expect them to say that, wouldn't you?' It defies belief that an industry organisation, the Pharmacy Guild, can determine, under both the Liberals and Labor, that existing pharmacies are entitled to be protected from competition by location rules on the fig-leaf justification that somehow or other people in regional and rural areas will have better access to pharmaceuticals as a consequence. It is absolute nonsense, and review after review has said it is nonsense. The only ones who don't say it's nonsense are the Pharmacy Guild. I cannot believe the government is falling for this nonsense.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:20): Since 1990, the locations rules have been an important part of the regulation of community pharmacy. Labor supported the extension of these rules in 2015 and reiterated at the election in 2016 that we would continue to do so. Labor will not be supporting this amendment.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:20): The government recognises the pivotal role of the community pharmacy sector in delivering medicines to Australian patients. The government's compact with the Pharmacy Guild in May last year, which included a continuation of the location rules, secures the support of community pharmacy in making further PBS reforms. I should indicate that the government is not supporting the amendment.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 5, part 1, stand as printed.
The committee divided. [12:25]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Third Reading
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:28): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (12:28): I rise to speak on the Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. The purpose of the bill is to amend various acts within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, including the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, to update outdated provisions, repeal redundant acts, align annual reporting requirements of the Auditor-General with his or her responsibilities to the parliament and amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to increase penalties relevant to offences in relation to a royal commission and provide commissioners with the additional power to require a person to give a written statement.
We've looked very closely at these amendments, and Labor will support the passage of the legislation. Most of the amendments are clearly legislative housekeeping. We support the timely and effective management of legislation which is on the books but which has become outmoded or redundant. However, there are some key issues that I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to in relation to this bill. The bill contains five schedules outlined in the memorandum of understanding, and I will give attention to each of these in sequence.
Schedule 1 amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, the ATSI Act, to remove the requirement for the Indigenous Business Australia, IBA, corporate plan to be tabled in the parliament. We do not want to minimise the process of accountability, and we have pursued this issue with the minister and the Attorney-General's Department. The minister has informed us that this reporting requirement is no longer needed. IBA has existing reporting requirements under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. This act currently requires that the corporate plan must be published on the entity's website by the last day of the second month of the reporting period for which the plan is prepared. We are assured there is therefore no loss of transparency. Schedule 1 also removes the requirement for the minister to notify parliament of any ministerial request to change their corporate plan. Correspondence between the minister and the IBA's sister body, the Indigenous Land Corporation, on the content of the ILC's corporate documents has previously been the topic of extended questioning in Senate estimates, as senators will recall, so we'll be watching the use of this particular provision very carefully.
Schedule 2 amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005, the ATSIC Amendment Act, to enable the Commonwealth, the IBA and the Indigenous Land Corporation, ILC, to waive the requirement that an organisation or individual who acquired land or assets with assistance from the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC, to get permission before disposing of those assets. These are properties that were purchased by ATSIC using taxpayer funds for the benefit of first nations, so we have considered the implications of this schedule very carefully.
The shadow Attorney-General and I have expressed concern to the minister that there may be unintended consequences that create a risk that the schedule may allow assets, such as houses and buildings purchased by ATSIC before its demise and now in the hands of Indigenous communities, to be lost to the Indigenous estate. I have been concerned about the potential for the department or the minister to make decisions over any rights or interests held by other consenting authorities, such as the IBA or the ILC. Over several months in the last half of last year, Mr Dreyfus and I have repeatedly asked the minister for assurances on this issue. I am pleased to report that the minister and his officials have worked with us to provide assurances on this issue, and we're now in a position to support the schedule. The bill explicitly states:
The appropriate consenting authority may give the individual or body written notice stating that the appropriate … consent is not required in relation to any disposal of the interest by the individual or body.
The minister has committed to making it clear today that only the authority that holds the caveat over the asset can give notice that the consent is not required. This will allow some degree of flexibility for first nations and their organisations holding assets to strategically buy, sell and lease their properties without a complicated bureaucratic process to ensure that any waivers on the property are managed. My information from the minister is that this approach has been supported by a range of organisations, importantly including the IBA and the ILC.
I'm also informed by the minister that this will assist organisations such as the Murchison R egional Aboriginal Corporation. That corporation is a not-for-profit community-managed housing organisation that has been providing housing opportunities for Aboriginal people in the Mid W est and Gascoyne region since 1986. It is based in Geraldton. It provides long-term housing for Aboriginal people and their families residing in these region s, and holds some 51 properties that could be more flexibly and strategically managed if the waiver provisions were relaxed.
Schedule 3 repeals the redundant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 and—an act I know very well — the Council f or Aboriginal Reconciliation Act ; and makes consequent amendments to the Age Discrimination Act 2004 and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Schedule 4 amends the A uditor-General Act 1997 so that the Auditor-General, an officer of the parliament , will present his or her annual report directly to parliament instead of to the relevant minister. Schedule 5 makes a number of amendments to the Royal Commission s Act , the most significant being changes to the commission's powers and increased penalties relevant to offences in relation to royal commissions.
These are all straightforward legislative amendments which the opposition can support.
Senator SCULLION ( Northern Territory — Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate ) ( 12:36 ): I thank senators for their contribution s on this legislation, both in the debate in this chamber and through our discussions since the bill was introduced. This bill, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017,makes important amendments to legislation in the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, as well as to legislation that administers the operation of the Australian National Audit Office and the operation of royal commissions.
The bill will make amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005, or the ATSIC Amendment Act , which will allow the Commonwealth to be more flexible in its approach to caveats that are held over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander grant - funded assets. The Commonwealth uses a range of mechanism s to ensure its rights and interests , and those of Indigenous persons intended to benefit from the grants , are protected. This practice has led to some inconsistent Commonwealth policies, particularly in the treatment of current and legacy interests.
N ew Indigenous or mainstream grant-funded properties are managed contractually through a risk based approach for time - limited periods of up to 20 years and in line with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 . However, properties that were grant funded during the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, or ATSIC, era are subject to the ATSIC Amendment Act of 2005 , which requires the Commonwealth to keep its interest until an organisation wishes to dispose of the property. This impacts on a number of organisations, like the Rumbala ra Aboriginal Co - operative, Aboriginal Housing Victoria, Jupiter Mosman Housing Company and the organisation mentioned by my colleague Senator Dodson, the Murchison Regional Aboriginal Corporation . They are examples of the over 420 Indigenous organisations that own 2,850 properties with caveats over them.
U pon ATSIC's abolition in 2005, its interests were split between consenting authorities , who assume d decision - making authority regarding specific properties. The consenting authorities include Commonwealth departments, Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land Corporation. The current restrictions on these assets mean that Indigenous organisations have limited flexibility to deal with their assets and have been restricted in how they can manage their assets. For example, banks will not usually lend against a property that has such a caveat , so Indigenous organisations are restricted in their ability to use their assets to access finance or consider alternative approaches to manage their assets. I'm quite sure that wasn't contemplated as part of what the arrangements would provide.
The amendments will allow for organisations to proactively apply for their caveats to be released, which will support an increase in autonomy and economic independence for those organisations or better enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to more freely use their assets for economic development, and of course reduce red tape for Indigenous organisations. Importantly, the power to remove a caveat is limited to the appropriate consenting authority, and, as the bill states:
The appropriate consenting authority may give the individual or body written notice stating that the appropriate consenting authority’s consent is not required in relation to any disposal of the interest by the individual or body.
That means, clearly, that only Indigenous Business Australia can give consent to remove a caveat that it holds, only the Indigenous Land Corporation can give consent to remove a caveat that it holds and only the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet can give consent to remove a caveat that it holds. Senator Dodson asked me to make this clear in the summing-up speech, and I hope that has been made clear. I take the opportunity to thank Senator Dodson. I think it's been very useful to work to ensure we don't create an unintended outcome again in the future.
These amendments respond to the 2015 Council of Australian Governments' investigation into Indigenous land use recommendation that the Commonwealth review remaining caveats on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission properties and remove unnecessary restrictions to support economic development for Indigenous landowners. The recommendation was developed with an expert Indigenous working group to ensure the views and support of Indigenous landholders and native title holders were taken into account. For example, take the view of Freddie Pascoe, the CEO of Bynoe Community Advancement Co-operative Society, who has strongly expressed his support for this legislation. These reforms will give Bynoe the opportunity to leverage the equity invested in the properties, over which the Commonwealth currently has an interest in 64 titles, and enable Bynoe to continue to pursue their economic aspirations for the benefit of the Normanton community, where those titles are. This is a practical example of self-determination by a strong and forward-thinking Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisation.
The Commonwealth will adopt a risk based approach to determine if its interests should be waived. The first step will be to develop new guidelines to support the legislative changes. We're consulting with Indigenous stakeholders, including the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and other Commonwealth consenting authorities on those guidelines, including the Indigenous Land Corporation and Indigenous Business Australia. We will also be working with the opposition, as they've assisted us in the past.
These amendments are consistent with our approach to work with Indigenous Australians to deliver better outcomes. These amendments will empower local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations that have these historical caveats to allow them to get on with their job. We need to treat them in the way that they see the best fit. These amendments will ensure Indigenous organisations that received funding to purchase an asset 20 to 30 years ago are treated in much the same way as any other non-Indigenous organisations, and, indeed, Indigenous organisations, that receive grant funding from governments now. We will ensure we work carefully with organisations to determine if interests should be waived to ensure that we do protect the Indigenous estate. The government strongly believe we must empower Indigenous Australians to make their decisions about their own economic future if we're to maximise our progress in this area.
The bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act of 2005, the ATSI Act, to repeal the requirement for the responsible minister to table Indigenous Business Australia's corporate plan. These obligations are duplicated in the requirement for Indigenous Business Australia to table an annual report, which mirrors the requirements of a corporate plan in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The repealing of the requirement will reduce red tape and streamline processes. It's being supported by Indigenous Business Australia.
Finally, in the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, the bill will repeal two redundant acts: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 is proposed to be repealed. Since the Queensland parliament re-enacted the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act 1978, it has not been possible for the Commonwealth to declare reserves for the purpose of the Queensland reserves act. That legislation is, therefore, redundant and is proposed to be repealed simply to reduce the size of the statute book. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation ceased in 2001, after it produced its final report in 2002. There are no ongoing arrangements or appointments or other measures under the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, and this legislation is also proposed to be repealed to reduce the size of the statute book.
The bill also amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to increase penalties for failure to comply with compulsory notices issued by a commissioner to attend or produce documents. Another change is to give a commissioner power to compel a person to provide a written statement. These changes implement recommendations of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption and the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program. Finally, it makes a number of amendments to the Auditor-General Act 1997. These amendments include changes to align annual reporting requirements with responsibilities to the parliament, consistent with the independence of the Auditor-General.
This bill is part of our commitment to reduce red tape in legislation and improve the administration of government. It delivers on our commitment to work with Indigenous communities and to empower them to pursue their own future. I commend the bill to the house.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:46): by leave—I move items (1) to (7) on sheet 8195 in my name together:
(1) Schedule 5, item 4, page 9 (line 20), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".
(2) Schedule 5, item 7, page 10 (line 4), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".
(3) Schedule 5, item 10, page 10 (line 12), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".
(4) Schedule 5, item 11, page 10 (line 19), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".
(5) Schedule 5, item 13, page 11 (line 6), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".
(6) Schedule 5, item 15, page 11 (line 11), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".
(7) Schedule 5, item 16, page 11 (line 14), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".
The bill before the Senate, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, is largely uncontroversial, dealing with things like annual reporting rules. It also includes a schedule dealing with royal commissions. This schedule adopts a recommendation from the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program to empower a royal commission to compel the provision of a statement by a potential witness. This is reasonable. After all, royal commissions already have powers to compel the giving of a document and the giving of oral evidence.
However, the schedule also seeks to adopt a recommendation from the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption to increase the penalties for various failures to comply with directions from royal commissions from a maximum of six months imprisonment to a maximum of two years imprisonment. There is no case for such an increase. People aren't being imprisoned for failing to comply with the directions of royal commissions let alone being imprisoned for six months. So, there is no evidence that the current six-months rule is a constraint that needs loosening. Increasing the penalty will not deter people from ignoring the directions of royal commissions, because people are not being convicted of ignoring those directions in the first place. If there is to be deterrence there need to be convictions.
We should also remember that failure to comply with a direction of a royal commission is less serious than failure to comply with a direction of a court. It is the judiciary that considers individual violations of the law of the land, and it is the judiciary that ensures that justice is done. By contrast, a royal commission is essentially advisory. It is neither necessary to ensure that justice is done nor directly involved in ensuring that justice is done.
Indeed, as a creation of executive government, a royal commission can be created to serve a partisan purpose, and every party in this place knows it.
My amendments ensure that for the existing offences of failing to comply with various directions of royal commissions the maximum penalties remain at six months imprisonment, instead of being lifted to two years imprisonment. The amendments also ensure that for the new offence of failing to provide a statement requested by a royal commission the maximum penalty is set at six months imprisonment, rather than two years imprisonment. I commend my amendments to the Senate.
Senator DODSON ( Western Australia ) ( 12:50 ): Labor will not be supporting these amendments, as we are committed to assisting the operations of future royal commissions, consistent with the relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:50): I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for the amendments. We won't be supporting the amendments as we, as with those opposite, are committed to assisting the operation of future royal commissions, consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption.
The bill actually increases the penalties for failure to comply with compulsory notices to attend or produce documents to a commission, which implements recommendations 78 of the final report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. In making the recommendations, Commissioner Dyson Heydon observed that the existing penalties were manifestly inadequate. Currently a penalty of up to two years imprisonment is consistent with penalties for failure to comply with similar processes like those of ATSIC or the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, so penalties for these offences will increase.
I don't have data, Senator, on how many people necessarily had been fined. You've indicated that you haven't seen anyone be imprisoned for six months, but it is actually $1,000 or a six-month imprisonment, and it goes to two years imprisonment. There's no reference to a pecuniary penalty in the bill, because the court has the discretion to impose a pecuniary penalty instead of or in addition to imprisonment, which is in section 4B of the Crimes Act. For two years in imprisonment, the complementary pecuniary penalty is an amount of up to $25,200 for a natural person—currently the value of a penalty unit. I note that, since the bill was introduced, the amount of a penalty unit has increased from $180 for each penalty unit, as reflected in the explanatory memorandum, to $210 per unit from 1 July 2017. Other changes to penalties proposed in this bill do not increase the penalty but just convert the dollar amount to a penalty unit amount consistent with current Commonwealth drafting practice.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:54): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:55): Labor is deeply committed to keeping Australians safe online and, therefore, supports the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017, which does introduce a civil penalty regime to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Whilst Labor does not think the bill goes far enough, we support it as a step in the right direction. It's essential the Australian parliament send a very clear message to the community that the sharing of, or threatening to share, intimate images without consent is absolutely not acceptable. Labor supports the regime because it provides a mechanism by which victims may seek affordable redress, including advice, support and information, and because it should deter perpetrators from sharing intimate images.
Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires Australia to take measures to protect persons from exploitation, violence and abuse, and prohibiting the non-consensual sharing of intimate images under a civil penalties regime goes some way to doing so. I note the submission of the Australian Information Commissioner to the department's consultation on this bill, which states
The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale.
According to a research report published in May 2017 by RMIT University, one in five Australians, one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Australian Indigenous peoples have experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This research found that the psychological impact on victims can be significant. And negative implications, whether perceived or actual, can affect their reputation, family, employment, social relationships and even personal safety.
While the non-consensual sharing of intimate images can occur as a result of the ex-partner of a victim distributing images of a victim for the purpose of seeking revenge, it can also involve acquaintances or even complete strangers distributing the images. The practice is generally intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing and distribution of intimate images or the threat to share, often in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce or punish a victim—commonly referred to as 'sex-tortion'. Other motives might include sexual gratification, fun, social notoriety and/or financial gain.
Labor understands how important it is to have a strong legal framework in place to strengthen the eSafety Commissioner's ability to resolve matters and to support the introduction of a graduated suite of redress mechanisms. Labor acknowledges that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner will seek to use established relationships with social media service providers and content hosts to facilitate the taking down of images, and thus a removal notice or other enforcement action may not be required in every case. In particular, we recognise the value of an accessible system that enables victims to lodge a complaint directly to the commissioner, where an intimate image has been posted or, indeed, someone is threatening to post without consent.
While Labor supports this bill, we note that it doesn't go far enough to address the seriousness of image based abuse. In October 2015 Labor introduced a private member's bill that would make the non-consensual sharing of intimate images a crime. Over two years later, the Turnbull government continues to delay criminalising the non-consensual sharing of these private images. In April 2016 the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report recommending:
To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.
Labor went to the 2016 federal election promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise revenge porn, as it was referred to then, within the first 100 days of being elected. In October 2016 Labor reintroduced its private member's bill in the current parliament. However, it was removed from the Notice Paper on 23 May 2017, because the government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays. In June 2017, the shadow minister for communications moved a second reading amendment in the House of Representatives, calling on the Turnbull government to criminalise sharing of intimate images without consent, but the motion was defeated. A similar motion was subsequently agreed to in the Senate, yet the government continued to ignore Labor's clear and longstanding intent that this egregious behaviour be criminalised. The Turnbull government has been dragging its feet and has taken far too long to address this issue of image based abuse. The bill comes in the fifth year of the Liberal government and over two years after Labor's first proposed, stronger measures.
In consultation that the government ran on the civil penalties regime last year, there was a missed opportunity to explore the criminalisation of the sharing of intimate images without consent. Protecting Australians from this type of abuse simply has not been a priority for the Turnbull government. Labor calls on the government to join Labor to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The absence of a criminal offence for image based abuse sends a message to rogue operators, victims and police alike that sharing intimate images without consent is not a crime. The government asserts that its approach, a civil penalties regime at the Commonwealth level and a patchwork of criminal penalties at state and territory level, gives victims a choice. However, by failing to enact criminal penalties, the Commonwealth is, in fact, limiting choice by limiting the range of simple and accessible avenues available to victims. While not all victims of image based abuse will want to pursue criminal proceedings, and may prefer to work with the eSafety Commissioner to remove these images, a civil penalty regime cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. Without a clear Commonwealth offence for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, a civil penalty regime may in fact incentivise police to refer cases to the eSafety Commissioner instead of prosecuting. The government has justified its failure to introduce a specific Commonwealth offence for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images on the basis that there is an existing offence under 474.17 of the Criminal Code for misuse of telecommunication services to menace, harass or cause offence. However, the given the breadth of cases prosecuted under section 474.17 by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, it is unclear how many of the charges referred to by the AFP are specifically for this type of image based abuse, as opposed to a broader range of conduct that menaces, harasses or causes offence.
Shortly after the introduction of Labor's private member's bill in 2015, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee established an inquiry into this issue. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions expressed concerns during the Senate inquiry that there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with revenge porn conduct. The DPP's submission to the inquiry acknowledged that existing Commonwealth laws capture only part of revenge porn conduct. The submission said:
… there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with 'revenge porn' conduct.
At a Senate hearing, the AFP said:
… uniformity in legislation across Australia would be most helpful for police—
to be able to investigate and charge perpetrators.
While the explanatory memorandum to the bill quotes research from a May 2017 RMIT research report, it fails to mention another key finding from that report, being that four in five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. A majority of Australians, 80 per cent, agreed with the statement, 'It should be a crime for someone to share a nude or sexual image of another person without that person's permission.' And there is broad agreement within the Australian community as to the seriousness of this issue regardless of whether someone has experienced it personally.
The explanatory memorandum to this bill goes on to acknowledge the seriousness of image based abuse. The EM says:
The non-consensual posting of an intimate image is a serious breach of a person's right to privacy. It involves the sharing of a personal and intimate image with a person or people with whom it was not intended to be shared. Not only is this a fundamental breach of trust by the person sharing the image, it often has long lasting detrimental consequences for the person depicted in the image.
Further, the EM states:
The posting of an intimate image without consent is also an attack on a person's reputation. Not only does it cause harm and distress for the victim, it can also have broader impacts for the victim's reputation. It can have far reaching consequences for the victim's personal relationships and friendships, and may also impact a victim's employment or other prospects which are contingent on their reputation.
Finally, the EM states:
The Australian public recognise the abhorrence of this practice and the significant harm it causes victims, and expect an appropriate regime to be enacted to prevent and minimise harm to victims or potential victims.
Labor believes that the significance of this harm warrants criminal penalties, plain and simple. So, for these reasons, I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name and in these terms:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(a) notes key research findings from RMIT University that 1 in 5 Australians have experienced image-based abuse and 4 in 5 Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission;
(b) notes that in Australia there is a piecemeal legislative approach to image-based abuse, with no nationally consistent criminal laws, and that the harms associated with image based abuse warrant it being specifically classified as a criminal offence;
(c) notes that the Council of Australian Governments recommended that to clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so;
(d) notes that this Bill does not criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent; and
(e) with the exception of depictions of persons without attire of religious or cultural significance, calls on the Government to criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent."
Along with the government, Labor acknowledges and appreciates that the more prominent social media service providers and content hosts are working very hard to develop innovative technological measures or have already put in place robust processes that are intended to assist victims whose images have been shared without consent. Labor encourage these social media providers and content hosts to continue this good work, and we note that the bill will not prevent victims from approaching these services in the first instance, rather than the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, if they wish to do so. Labor recognises the strong partnerships that social media services and content hosts have established with the commissioner and encourages their continuance, as these relationships will continue to be pivotal in protecting Australians against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Against this backdrop, Labor notes some of the key concerns of DIGI, as noted in its submissions to the department's consultation on the discussion paper on the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. These concerns include, firstly, that the bill duplicates existing industry efforts to remove image based abuse and may not represent the most targeted or effective use of taxpayer resources and may even disincentivise industry innovation in addressing image based abuse. The bill does not require victims to first exhaust company complaint channels, for example. Secondly, the bill may not improve compliance around the removal of image based abuse given that major digital platforms already operate efficient take-down policies, some of which see the removal of offending content faster than the 24-hour time frame stipulated in the bill, and given that the eSafety Commissioner is likely to continue to encounter difficulties in compelling overseas sites and rouge operators to remove images with only a civic regime in place. I think that is a very important point.
In view of these concerns, Labor believes that within three years of its commencement the minister should cause to be conducted a review of the civil penalty regime for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, along with the preparation of a report and the tabling of a report in each house of parliament. While the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 already includes a review clause at section 107, this review is due to commence in the very near future. If conducted in a timely fashion, that review will assess the cyberbullying regime that first commenced in 2015, but it will, sadly, be of limited efficacy given that the new regime for image based abuse won't have been in operation for very long. Labor thinks there should be further meaningful review of any new civil penalties regime once it has been in operation for a substantial period of time.
In conclusion, Labor supports this bill as a step in the right direction but stands firm on its clear and longstanding calls for relevant criminal provisions. There's nothing out of the ordinary about having both civil and criminal provisions enacted. I reiterate Labor's support for the Senate inquiry recommendation, which was that the Commonwealth government legislate, to the extent of its constitutional power and in conjunction with state and territory legislation, offences for recording, sharing and threatening to take and/or share intimate images without consent. In closing, I reiterate the comments of the opposition leader in his November 2016 White Ribbon Day speech, and those were:
So called revenge porn should be a crime across Australia but it is not.
Criminalisation of so called revenge porn should be a Federal law, not just left to a patchwork of state laws, consistent with the Commonwealth DPPs recommendation.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:12): The Australian Greens would like to welcome the positive move that this bill makes in protecting Australians from those who would seek to use online platforms to abuse, threaten, extort or otherwise cause harm by the non-consensual sharing of or threatening to share intimate images. We are pleased that the government, in this instance, has finally listened to progressive voices around this chamber and the country. We have been calling for such legislation for many years now. It is refreshing to see this government seeking to expand protections for individuals, rather than seeking to harvest, store and share their most personal information themselves in the name of so-called national security. We are even more pleased that the government has taken inspiration from the legislation put forward by my colleagues in the ACT Greens, which include a broad definition of 'intimate' that acknowledges cultural context, including the depiction of a person without attire of religious or cultural significance. We are also supportive of the definition of 'consent' as something that must be expressed, voluntary and informed.
We are, however, disappointed—and, I must say, personally, deeply disappointed—that the legislation was brought on for debate in such haste that it did not allow for proper scrutiny, despite our best efforts to refer this bill to inquiry. The government has tried to dismiss our requests by citing previous consultation. However, consultation does not negate the need for scrutiny, particularly when many of those consulted are under the impression that they will subsequently be given the opportunity to give their thoughts, opinions and expertise in regard to the outcome. We are also disappointed that, in the government's haste to introduce this legislation, they seem to have forgotten one small yet crucial detail—to allocate any funding to the cost of running this scheme. They have instead pushed off to the 2019 budget the burden—and let's call it for what it is—of the necessity of matching the very critical sentiments and beliefs embodied in this legislation with actual funding dollars.
We have deep concerns around the adequacy of funding to be provided particularly to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to expand their powers. Much has been said of the merit of the scheme currently operated by the commissioner, but I am sad to inform the chamber, and I'm not sure whether many of us in here know this, that the aspect of the commission's work that will actually be implemented to carry out this scheme currently has working within it four persons—four individuals. I am hopeful that, presumably, somewhere down the track more money will be given to the commission to carry out this additional expanded critical work, but none of that certainty has been given. None of those assurances have been made, though these are all issues. This is really just one of the many issues that could and should have been considered during a committee process. We also have serious concerns about the implications for people under the age of 18 who will potentially face steep civil penalties under the proposed regime, and I will address this in more detail within my amendment.
Last year, Senator O'Neill rightly noted, RMIT University gave us insight into the nature of image based abuse and also the people who are most likely to be targeted. Unsurprisingly, the people who are targeted primarily are already marginalised and discriminated against. Fifty-six per cent of disabled Australians have been victims of image based abuse, as have 50 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. LGBTIQ people are victims of this horrendous abuse 36 per cent of the time. One in three people aged 16 to 19 and one in four aged between 20 and 29 have reported at least one form of image victimisation.
This speaks to the lived reality that is known by so many Australians, that technology facilitated abuse is now extremely prevalent in domestic and family situations. It is a horrible background drum to the lives of so many of our fellow Australians, and it is increasingly prevalent in the area of domestic and family violence, including tracking, harassment, surveillance and hacking, with image based abuse occurring or likely to occur once the relationship ends. A reality that we must confront and recognise is that the majority of perpetrators are male and that women are more likely than men to be victimised by an intimate partner or ex-partner.
The impacts of image based abuse are significant, with victims suffering high levels of psychological distress, consistent with a diagnosis of moderate to severe depression and/or anxiety. The negative implications of abuse can affect every aspect of a person's life, including family, employment, relationships and personal safety itself.
We believe that the legislation does complement state legislation that has been introduced around the country. It is also important for a national strategy in implementing the civil penalties regime to complement state legislation that criminalises the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
We also need—and I think this is a point that we cannot go past in this debate—fundamentally to recognise and acknowledge the role that social media and internet content providers must play in introducing proactive, not just reactive, measures to create safe spaces online. Quite frankly, I have grown tired, during the course of consideration of this legislation, of hearing the many, varied and well-constructed words of particular CEOs of various social media companies speaking at length about the wonderful things that they are doing in this space. You will forgive me if I express a little cynicism here, particularly when we are talking of carriers and organisations with billions of users that are seeking public praise for the employment of a couple of thousand people in these areas, allowing, on average, 30 seconds to be given to the review of each report. I rather believe that in this area it is important to look not to the rhetoric but to the material reality of the funds invested in dealing with this problem. It often is difficult to identify just how much is being spent in this space, but I don't think I will be going too far out on a limb if I suggest that many of these companies do not spend as much money annually protecting their users, for whom they have a responsibility of care, from these kinds of horrendous experiences as they do attempting to sell them various plastic products.
In conclusion, we welcome this piece of legislation to the parliament. It is far past time that we acted in this area, and I join with Senator O'Neill in expressing disappointment that it has in fact taken us five years to end up in this space and to act in relation to an issue which in that period of time has been wreaking profound havoc on the lives of so many Australians. I, in the course of consideration of this legislation, have been given the opportunity to reflect critically upon our role here as a house of review and what that means in a tangible sense. If you take the time to listen to the experiences of those who have been victims in this space, you cannot help but be gripped by a sense of profound urgency. However, I also cannot escape the thought that the seriousness of these situations requires us here to ensure that proper scrutiny is given to the framework which we then take forward to address these issues. People who experience this kind of intrusion into the most private elements of their lives deserve from us nothing less than the finest piece of legislation that we can put forward. However, things being as they are, we welcome this step forward.
I would like to close by expressing a wish that the government and the opposition, in so many unfortunate situations, weren't so often firmly aligned against the needs, rights and protections of individual Australians when it comes to personal data and communications online. It seems that the clarity which is gifted to us in relation to this issue is lost when we consider these issues. There is a failure to see the fundamental overlap between online safety and privacy concerns—safety simply does not exist without privacy and security online.
In conclusion, I ask us to go forward from this debate and consider in depth and detail the broader issue of the protection of all Australians' digital self as we move forward into an ever more technologically advanced Australian community. I thank the chamber for its time.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:25): In lending Labor's support today to the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017, I recognise what an important issue this is for us to be talking about. It is the unfortunate experience of one in five Australians to have had such non-consensual sharing of intimate images happen to them. As others have highlighted, it includes one in two people with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians. The vast proportion of those images have been of women.
As we know, this bill prohibits the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and does at least go some way in deterring people from engaging in this extraordinary behaviour. We understand that it has a civil penalty regime attached to it and provides the eSafety Commissioner with stronger frameworks to resolve these questions. However, like Senator Steele-John, I highlight the minimal resources that the eSafety Commissioner currently has for undertaking this kind of work. We see that the commissioner can seek civil penalties of up to $105,000, or over $500,000 for body corporates.
In Labor's view these changes are important, but we don't believe that they go far enough. They don't go far enough in terms of protecting Australians from online exploitation and abuse, and we should be clear that this is exactly what non-consensual sharing of intimate images is—exploitation, humiliation and abuse—and it needs to be treated as such. I have seen firsthand the great harm and distress that these acts cause to victims. We must ensure that our laws reflect this harm. We want the government to send a clear message to Australians that sharing these images without consent is completely unacceptable. On this side of the chamber, we certainly believe that making the sharing of non-consensual images a crime would be the right way forward from here.
We know that the sharing of these images is used to exploit and exercise power over others, both within and outside relationships. It is an extreme example—a very real one, and one that some of my very own friends have experienced—of how some men exercise power and control over women with whom they have had relationships. It is a tool used by perpetrators of family violence to exercise control over victims, be they their partners or their former partners. It is a form of revenge, a form of blackmail, a form of coercion, and, indeed, a form of ongoing abuse to denigrate and harm the reputation of former family members.
So it's not only the sharing of these images that concerns us but the creation of content in a whole range of ways. Indeed, as others in this place have highlighted, we've seen that often the sharing of intimate images is combined with such acts as hacking and the placing of stalker apps on partners' phones. There are a whole series of behaviours that we need the law to capture. These are issues that Senator Cash should recognise. We also have concerns about the recording of sexual assaults and consensual acts as well as threats to distribute images. It's not just images but the recording of video et cetera that's of concern to us.
We know that image based abuse is part of a much broader set of behaviours around digital harassment. In my own experience I have seen that it is on the rise. I've seen my own friends who have had their Facebook accounts hacked into, or who have had stalker apps put on their mobile phone so that former partners can track their movements. It is an ever-growing use of technology and social media to perpetuate family and domestic violence and abuse. As the risks of these behaviours rise, so do the extreme impacts on victims and their families. It's becoming easier and easier to create and share online images.
Governments must think carefully about the role they play in preventing this abuse and how we deal with this kind of offending. We on this side of the chamber take this issue very seriously. We promised to legislate to criminalise revenge porn within the first 100 days of being elected. In 2015 Labor MPs introduced a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code and make the non-consensual sharing of images an offence. I'm proud of that. Sadly, the bill lapsed in 2016 after the prorogation of parliament, but it was reintroduced in October 2016. It was removed from the Notice Paper in May 2017, because the government wouldn't call it on for debate. So I'm pleased that this legislation is before us today but I call on the government to be more proactive and to take these issues seriously.
Currently I'm chairing a Senate inquiry into cyberbullying. The concerns being raised before that inquiry really highlight that the extent of the issues before us requires ongoing engagement and reform of our laws. It has been more than two years since Labor first proposed measures to protect people from the sharing of these images. While we're pleased to see the bill before us, the government has been too slow in acting. Given the broad range of issues regarding cyberbullying and harassment that are also up for public debate, the nexus of digital harassment in the context of domestic violence, the harassment of public figures and journalists—the whole range of cyberbullying that's taking place—I call on the government to be more proactive in this space. It's taken far too long. It's clear that this bill is not a tough response and that this issue has not been a priority for the Turnbull government. The sharing of the images should be a criminal offence. I note that the explanatory memorandum of the bill says:
The Australian public recognise the abhorrence of this practice and the significant harm it causes victims, and expect an appropriate regime to be enacted to prevent and minimise harm to victims or potential victims.
And, as others have highlighted, four out of five Australians agree that it should be a criminal offence. That research is from RMIT.
It's good that the EM states that, but the EM is not a true reflection of the wishes of the Australian public, because there is broad agreement from the Australian public that this should be a crime. So why won't the government do this? Why, when the EM of the bill quotes this very research, is the government not taking this stronger action? While these abhorrent acts are not criminal in Commonwealth law, it sends a message to victims, police and perpetrators that the sharing of intimate images without consent is not a crime. Victims should have the option of enacting criminal proceedings should they wish to do so. Indeed, it creates confusion between the states and the Commonwealth, noting that the Commonwealth has a different regime to the states. I'm concerned that, without a clear Commonwealth offence, a civil penalty regime may simply encourage police to refer cases to the eSafety Commissioner rather than prosecute offenders.
I note that in 2015 the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee found that existing Commonwealth laws are inadequate in dealing with revenge porn. Submissions by the then Commonwealth DPP noted that existing laws capture only part of the conduct and that there are limitations on Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with revenge porn conduct. The AFP has also said that uniform legislation across Australia would be helpful to police in investigating revenge porn and charging perpetrators. It does create confusion for police in state and other jurisdictions when they're weighing up their state laws and, indeed, the Commonwealth laws at the same time.
The COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report in 2016 that said:
… existing laws that govern such offences do not adequately capture the scope or nature of these offences.
… … …
To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.
The panel explicitly called on the Commonwealth to do a number of things. These included, firstly, introducing legislation that reinforces perpetrator accountability by removing uncertainty and explicitly making it illegal to use technology to distribute intimate material without consent; secondly, introducing and enforcing strong and consistent penalties for adults who distribute intimate material without consent; and, thirdly, improving community understanding of the impacts and consequences of distributing such intimate material.
Currently, the federal Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to use a carriage service to menace, harass or offend another person. But the problem is that this legislation is not designed to respond to this kind of behaviour. Many experts, including senior lecturers from Monash, La Trobe and RMIT, have said it's not being used for these kinds of acts; it's not actually capturing the sharing of intimate images or other kinds of cyberbullying and harassment.
Some research has also shown there are issues in the law about the intention behind a behaviour and whether someone intended to menace, harass or cause offence. As such, there's a problem with legal grey areas in the existing Commonwealth law. We need clear and strong laws that take action on image based abuse. Instead, what we have is a patchwork of laws that creates confusion and, indeed, limits options for victims in our country.
There's been, as I've highlighted before, some progress in different states towards criminalising this conduct. Victoria and South Australia have made this an offence. In New South Wales also it is an offence to record or distribute images without consent. Western Australia has passed laws allowing a family violence restraining order to be used in cases of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This is a very important factor that other states should also be taking account of and that the Commonwealth should be taking account of, using its telecommunications powers to actually be directly involved in the prevention of domestic violence and family abuse with the sharing of these images.
So some, but not all, jurisdictions have taken action and there are gaps across the country. Some state and territory laws have no specific criminal offence for this kind of behaviour at all. This is why we need to see leadership from the Commonwealth to work with the states to provide consistency in order to provide protection where there are inconsistencies from state to state. The AFP and others have called for this so that we can properly catch perpetrators and get better community understanding of why it is wrong to commit these kinds of acts.
In states where there is no specific criminal offence it is very difficult for victims to have any recourse. They have simply no recourse. Civil law is a costly exercise which is out of reach for most ordinary Australians. Criminal laws would allow all victims, no matter where they live, no matter how much money they have, to take action if they wish to do so. There are already too many barriers for victims in this space. No matter where they live, no matter how much money they have, it should be the right of victims to be able to take action. There is a lack of understanding of our laws, a fear of a lack of resources and a fear among victims of backlash should they take action. The lack of clear criminal law should not be a further barrier.
I don't want to see us take a piecemeal approach to this very serious issue. The reality is that our current laws are failing victims. There are too many victims in our nation who embark on very long and tough battles for justice and many don't even get their chance. The cases are complex, often in uncharted legal territory, and there are doubts about how our justice system can deal with them. We know that social media platforms themselves are doing some work to remove these images and to prevent them from being disseminated; they are very active in doing this. We note that Facebook is working with the government in a pilot project to detect when inappropriate images are uploaded. There is a lot of work to attempt to control online abuse, and other platforms are following Facebook and other organisations to do this. But unless people are held accountable, unless people are criminalised for this act, unless the government takes strong action, the work of organisations and companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and many others can only go so far.
The burden in our nation cannot, and should not, sit with victims. The government must set expectations about behaviour and show that image based abuse and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images should not be tolerated in our nation in any way at all. We need a national approach, a Commonwealth criminal offence, to address these issues. I join with those who call on the Turnbull government to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images as a matter of priority.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:44): I rise to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017. The Nick Xenophon Team supports this bill and welcomes the measures taken by the government to combat image based abuse through the establishment of a civil penalty scheme. Given that only last week we noted Safer Internet Day and the continuation of the inquiry into the adequacy of cyberbullying offences, it is timely that this chamber now turns its attention to this bill.
First I will take a moment to acknowledge the work done by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to promote online safety. During the course of the hearing last Friday we heard evidence of 100 per cent compliance. This means that every time the commissioner has asked a social media website to remove an inappropriate image, it has done so and, more importantly, it has done so swiftly. That statistic is all the more impressive when you consider that this was achieved not through formal notices or warnings but rather through the use of established working relationships between the office and these organisations. I genuinely thank the office for their efforts in addressing image based abuse and in seeking to ensure that we are all free to engage with family, friends and the world at large without fear of repercussions.
It is, however, a sad reflection on the current state of our society that we require the Office of the eSafety Commissioner at all, and that even during our closest personal relationships we must exercise caution and censorship, because some members of our community have so little respect for the privacy and dignity of others. Let me be clear: the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is abhorrent. The perpetrators of image based abuse are cowards who hide behind the anonymity, invisibility and unfettered freedom that the internet provides, all in an attempt to intimidate, humiliate and control their victims. In the worst cases, we know these individuals are even seeking to profit from the abuse by onselling images to websites or seeking to blackmail their victims. We know that one click of a button can have devastating and lasting consequences for unsuspecting victims, consequences that permeate every aspect of their lives, from personal relationships and employment prospects to even their mental health. We know this, we've heard it time and time again, and now is the time to act.
This bill goes some way towards restoring dignity and empowering victims of image based abuse through the establishment of a civil penalty scheme. This scheme will prohibit an individual from posting an intimate image without consent on a social media service, designated internet service or other relevant electronic service. While that sentence sets out a clear aim, it also includes difficult issues surrounding the definition of both 'intimate' and 'consent'. When tackling image based abuse, consent must be at the forefront of our discussions. We must recognise that consent, once given, may not always remain. A person may initially consent to an image being captured in the context of a loving relationship, but circumstances change and they may no longer feel comfortable for the image to be shared with the wider population.
I pause here to stress that a person should absolutely be entitled to change their mind. We are dealing with images of a deeply personal nature that potentially leave the individual in a frighteningly vulnerable position. That is why I'm pleased to see that this bill provides appropriate pathways for a person to lodge a complaint to the commissioner with respect to an image that they may have originally consented to. I otherwise welcome the government's acknowledgement that 'intimate' can and will vary from person to person, and will ultimately depend on whether, in that particular circumstance, that particular person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. To use the oft-quoted example, a woman who ordinarily wears religious attire in public would have a reasonable expectation that an image of her would not be shared. Some would say this is political correctness gone too far, but that misses the point completely. This is about respect for one another and offering the same level of protection to all levels of society.
I also welcome the discretion provided to the eSafety Commissioner to utilise non-formal dispute resolution processes, noting that this method has a proven track record of success and recognises that for many victims the primary objective is the removal of the image as soon as possible. However, it is reassuring that the commissioner has been provided with a suite of enforcement provisions to utilise as and when required, including but not limited to the imposition of significant financial penalties. I again note the impressive work of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and trust that the government will continue to provide sufficient funding to enable the commissioner to carry out her duties.
While NXT supports the introduction of a civil penalty scheme, it is disappointing that the government has not used the opportunity to introduce criminal offences with respect to image based abuse. Such a step would serve two purposes: first, it would acknowledge the seriousness not only of the action itself but also of the consequences that follow from it; and, second, it sends a message to offenders that this behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by society.
It is this aim that my colleague former senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore sought to highlight when moving a second reading amendment to the bill which successfully broadened the scope of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner last year. Even a cursory glance at the Hansard from that debate reveals that such a step would, hopefully, receive bipartisan support. In fact, it was Senator O'Neill who put the issue so eloquently when she stated:
The law can shape social norms and affect community attitudes, but it is up to parliamentarians like us to send the message that this behaviour is not accepted in the community. Commonwealth legislation on this matter will send a clear signal to young men and young women in Australia that this behaviour is just not on. The experts agree that we need to criminalise this behaviour now, and Labor calls on the government to act and to act now.
Senator O'Neill then went on to state:
While a new complaints process about so-called revenge porn is welcome, it is not in itself sufficient. There needs to be strong criminal law, making it clear that circulating nude pictures or videos of sex acts without someone's consent, or threatening to do so, is not acceptable. Labor will continue to ensure that so-called revenge porn is criminalised, including by the creation of appropriate Commonwealth offences.
Nicely said, Senator O'Neill!
The opposition's position has again been confirmed in a second reading amendment circulated earlier today. The opposition's second reading amendment calls on the government to criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent, except for depictions of persons wearing religious or cultural attire. This is precisely what the Nick Xenophon Team propose to do in our amendments. Labor have publicly declared their support for the introduction of uniform criminal offences through the 2016 private member's bill, the 2017 comments and now their second reading amendment. I trust that we can now rely on Labor's support during the committee stage.
The failure to introduce criminal offences last year was very much a missed opportunity. For it to occur a second time would be a tragedy, particularly in the light of the government's strong track record of tackling image based abuse—from the establishment of the eSafety Commissioner and its subsequent expansion to the release of a statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of image based abuse. We simply ask that the government now take the next logical step.
I stress that this would not require a blind leap of faith by the government but would rather be the culmination of a lengthy and detailed process of consultation and review. By way of brief example: the inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee into the phenomenon known as 'revenge porn', the final report of the COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children and the final report from the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children have all recommended a uniform approach to criminal offences relating to image based abuse. The current patchwork of state and Commonwealth legislation is totally inadequate. During the course of the Senate inquiry, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Federal Police all noted the need for a uniform approach to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
I appreciate that legislating this area is not without its complexities, but we as parliamentarians have an obligation to send a clear message that this behaviour does not have any place in our society. For those reasons I intend to move amendments that would introduce into the Commonwealth Criminal Code offences with respect to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:54): In the short time I've got before question time, I'd like to speak about the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017. While I commend the government for taking a step in the right direction, I've got to admit to a great sense of disappointment in regard to this. I'm disappointed for two reasons. Firstly, the government has been dragging its feet on this important issue. This bill has been introduced belatedly after numerous calls by Labor and by the general community for the government to act on the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Secondly, the bill currently before the Senate just doesn't go far enough. This behaviour must be outlawed through a specific Commonwealth criminal offence, and the government's proposed civil penalty regime is simply not strong enough to signal to perpetrators how unacceptable this behaviour is.
I've come across this issue on a number of occasions during my time in this place. As Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Cyber Safety, I chaired the committee's inquiry into options for addressing the issues of sexting by minors, which reported in August 2013. A number of submitters told the inquiry that there is a need to decriminalise the consensual sharing of images by minors. But, at the same time, there was broad agreement that a new criminal offence should be introduced for non-consensual sexting. Given the short time frame available for conducting that inquiry, the committee made some observations but no recommendation other than saying that the inquiry should be continued in the 44th Parliament. Sadly, that did not happen.
It is also a great shame that the cybersafety committee was never re-formed. That committee did some excellent work during its time, as did its predecessor the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety. I believe there's an ongoing need for this committee, given the pace of change in digital technology, with which our laws seem to be struggling to keep up. Had either the joint or the Senate select committee been re-established, it may have had an opportunity to explore further the subject of non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
In November 2015 I sought to refer the issue of non-consensual sharing of intimate images to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, and the Senate agreed. As a member of that committee, I also participated in the inquiry. Officially, the inquiry was held into the phenomenon colloquially known as 'revenge porn', but a number of witnesses, particularly victim support services, suggested using the term 'non-consensual sharing of intimate images', which we now see in the title of this bill. They pointed out that the term 'revenge porn' was too narrow. The word 'porn'—short for 'pornography', obviously—focuses on the perceived action of the victim rather than behaviour of the perpetrator, and the word 'revenge' does not account for the wide range of motives behind this behaviour. Private intimate images can also be shared for control, blackmail, coercion, punishment, fun, notoriety, sexual gratification or financial gain.
Another commonly used term for this behaviour is 'image based abuse'. While this term is less specific in describing the phenomenon, the inclusion of the word 'abuse' makes it clear that this is an act which causes harm and that those responsible for the harm are clearly the perpetrators.
The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee handed down its report in February 2016. It recommended a range of Commonwealth offences to criminalise this behaviour, as well as statutory mechanisms to compel internet and social media providers to take down images as quickly as possible. The offences would include knowingly or recklessly recording an intimate image without consent, knowingly or recklessly sharing intimate images without consent, and threatening to take and/or share intimate images without consent, irrespective of whether or not those images exist. That report is yet to receive a formal response from the government.
The Senate's inquiry recommendation to make non-consensual sharing of intimate images a Commonwealth offence was backed up by a report by the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and Their Children in April 2016. That report recommended:
To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.
Shortly before the inquiry started, my Labor colleagues in the House Terri Butler and Tim Watts introduced a private members' bill to create new offences in relation to the use of a carriage service for sharing private sexual material. Sadly, this bill didn't get any further than Mr Watts introducing it and delivering his second reading speech before it lapsed at what was the most political prorogation of parliament in Australia's history. Despite Labor's private member's bill lapsing, we have continued to pursue this issue. Labor went to the last federal election promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise non-consensual sharing of intimate images—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Bilyk! We interrupt the debate for question time. You'll be in continuation when the debate resumes.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Indigenous Housing
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (14:00): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which comes to an end in June 2018, provided over $5 billion over 10 years. What amount of Commonwealth funding is the Turnbull government prepared to provide to state and territory governments through bilateral arrangements?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:00): We've indicated that we will be taking a view similar to the one we've taken in the NPARIH process, which is that it's done on the number of houses that are required to take the overcrowding down to whatever notional level has been applied. So it's just down to the number of houses. Each one of the bilaterals will be based on the amount of funding that is required to do those houses. I don't wish to affect the negotiations, but I've just—
Senator Pratt: What negotiations?
Senator SCULLION: Well, the negotiations with the states. That's actually who we're negotiating with in this. You should try to keep up, Senator. I've just finished meeting with the housing minister, Minister McCarthy, from the Northern Territory, literally an hour or so ago, and the negotiating base is that we want to see what the Northern Territory government are going to put up, and they've put up some substantive funds and we're matching those funds. I indicated yesterday that the fundamental difference in the negotiation is that we want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people standing there. We want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people actually being a part of this deal, and I want them to be ensuring that—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Scullion, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron.
Senator Cameron: The point of order is on direct relevance. What the minister has been asked is: what amount of Commonwealth funding is the Turnbull government prepared to provide? He has not gone to that issue.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, on the point of order.
Senator Birmingham: The minister has been very clear in explaining that the government is negotiating agreements that relate to the number of houses that would be supported, and of course the amount of funding relates to the number of houses. He is clearly being directly relevant.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I consider the minister to be directly relevant. I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question that is asked by another senator, but I remind him of the terms of the question asked, which I was assisted on from the chamber. Thank you.
Senator SCULLION: We have an independent report to guide the parliament on these matters. The independent report indicated that the funds should be on a 50-50 basis between the jurisdictions of the states and territories and the Commonwealth. On that basis, we are entering into bilaterals where we're putting a 50-50 basis on the table. We are currently in negotiations. The Northern Territory government have indicated that they're putting about $1.1 million a year on the table. If that's going to be the case, and I indicated today it would be, then we would be matching that. That's the quantum of funds that has been broadly agreed to so far, and I'm looking forward to the remainder of the negotiations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Dodson, a supplementary question.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (14:03): I take note of what the minister just said, but can the minister confirm that he is not walking away from the $1.1 billion that the Northern Territory government has put on the table?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:03): I can confirm actually that there's not $1.1 billion on the table from the Territory government, because I spoke about that today. They don't have a forward estimates in the same way as the Commonwealth does. They have an annual budget, and they've indicated that they have in their annual budget $1.1 million over the next year. We have about an $80 million residual, and they've indicated that the following year is about $1.1 million and that's what they're prepared to put into the fund, and we will match them dollar for dollar.
Senator Wong: That's not what Turnbull said. Who's telling the truth?
Senator SCULLION: I'm sorry about the interjections. I can tell you, I'm negotiating with the Northern Territory government.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Senator SCULLION: You've asked me a question. If you don't like the answer, that's tough.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator SCULLION: Senator Wong, you may not be interested in the answers about housing for our First Australians, but I tell you I am and they are interested in answers to these questions. The answer is: we will match them dollar for dollar.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order. I'm not going to call Senator Dodson until I can hear him. Senator Dodson, a final supplementary question.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (14:05): Yesterday, the minister told the Senate that he:
… will be meeting shortly with the ministers for housing in South Australia and in Western Australia.
Can the minister confirm that he has ignored the Western Australian Minister for Housing's request to discuss and negotiate ongoing contributions from the Commonwealth for remote Indigenous housing?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:05): I've written to the housing minister in Western Australia to seek a meeting about these matters.
Senator Pratt: When? He's been seeking a meeting with you for months!
Senator SCULLION: Listen, one of the normal things in this place is you would write someone a letter. You don't 'blark' in the media, 'Oh, I've done all these sorts of things.' So look, I will be meeting with the Western Australian government, I will be meeting with the South Australian government. And one of the questions I will be asking them is: why, over the last decade, have they walked away from any investment in Indigenous housing for their constituencies? Why is it that surreptitiously, from the day the Commonwealth walked in there, the special purpose payments for housing and the homelessness fund have had nothing put into Indigenous housing by those states? I'm looking forward to meeting those people and, if you give an absolute fig for any of those people who live in those houses, you wouldn't be supporting those states with their, I suspect, very racist approach to allocation of housing.
Indigenous Affairs
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:06): My question is also to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. Can the minister advise the Senate about how the coalition government is supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander small businesses and entrepreneurs?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:07): I thank you for that question, Senator. Mr President, I was very proud to announce, with the Prime Minister yesterday, that our small business policies are receiving unprecedented results. The Indigenous Procurement Policy, or IPP, has just eclipsed $1 billion in contracts to more than 1,000 Indigenous businesses. In fact, it's been so successful that we're applying its principles to our other investments including the Launceston City Deal around Launceston, in your state, Senator Bushby.
The data from the 2016 census shows that our policies are overseeing unprecedented growth in the Indigenous business sector. Since the last census, the number of Indigenous businesses has grown by 30 per cent. The sector is still small—despite being three per cent of the population, there is only 0.7 per cent in businesses—but if we close that gap, the economy will be $28 billion better off. That's why yesterday we launched the Indigenous Business Sector Strategy, the first comprehensive roadmap to grow the Indigenous business sector, which has been co-designed with more than 200 Indigenous business people. And I can advise the Senate that, as part of this strategy, we will be rolling out Indigenous business hubs across the country, which will be one-stop shops for business advice and support. We'll be launching a $27 million Indigenous Entrepreneurs Capital Scheme for mature Indigenous businesses who, because of historic undercapitalisation, cannot currently access commercial finance.
The other end of the spectrum will be doubling microfinance to particularly help CDP participants when they want to turn activities into microbusinesses. This is on top of our existing initiatives, like our $30 million Indigenous Entrepreneurs Fund and the refocused IBA business support programs.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:09): Can the minister advise what impact these measures are having on getting more Indigenous jobseekers off welfare and into work?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:09): I thank the senator for the question. We know that our policies are helping get more people off the misery of welfare and into the dignity of employment. Data from the census shows that our strong jobs market is particularly benefitting Indigenous Australians. We know that the economy created over 400,000 jobs last year, and since the last census the number of Indigenous Australians with a job has increased by 23.3 per cent. A lot of that is down to our small-business policies like the IPP, because we know that if we get more Indigenous businesses in the economy we're likely to get more Indigenous workers into work.
The average Indigenous workforce in our IPP firms is around 41 per cent Indigenous employment compared to the Indigenous workforce in the mainstream, which is 0.7 per cent. It means that, by supporting more Indigenous businesses, we get more Indigenous jobseekers into work by a factor of 60. These are fantastic results. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, final supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:10): Can the minister advise why the growth of the Indigenous business sector around the government's jobs agenda is critical to our efforts at closing the gap?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:10): Clearly our policies have been a success, and it's just down to being fair dinkum about things. The IPP works because we set targets that are clear and we made the secretaries for every department accountable for those targets. Unfortunately, what came before the IPP was a convoluted web of policies that no-one understood or really ever enforced. Is it any wonder that in 2012-13 it was only 30 Indigenous businesses which won about $6.2 million in contracts? Contrast that with our policies, which have taken Indigenous procurement from 6.2 to $1 billion in just 2½ years. We're making the necessary investments to keep this growth going through the Indigenous Business Sector Strategy. Unfortunately, the previous approach was the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Economic Participation, which was signed in 2008 with all jurisdictions with much fanfare but was just corporate speak with no response and no resources. It did absolutely nothing.
Deputy Prime Minister
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:11): My question is to Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Deputy Prime Minister Joyce has today confirmed that in April 2017 his former media adviser Vikki Campion went to work for a senior colleague, Mr Canavan. Did the minister seek the approval of the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office for the appointment to his office?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:11): I thank Senator Ketter for his question. This has been dealt with through a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister over the weekend. Appointments to Nationals ministers' offices are worked out in consultation between ministerial officers and the Deputy Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister's office—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: My President, I rise on a point of order. He may be approaching it. I was going to ask you to remind the minister of the question. There was only one question, which is whether or not this minister sought the approval of the Prime Minister or his office.
The PRESIDENT: I call Senator Canavan. I think he was coming to that, but I remind him of the question.
Senator CANAVAN: The Prime Minister's office, as has been outlined in that statement on the weekend, has an administrative role in informing the Department of Finance of those changes, so the answer to the question is no.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ketter, a supplementary question.
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:13): I ask the minister: who approved the appointment? How, when and by whom was approval of the appointment communicated?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:13): As I said in my answer to the previous question, the appointment was approved through consultation between my office and the Deputy Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister's office has a role in an administrative matter in informing the Department of Finance of the changes.
The PRESIDENT: A final supplementary question, Senator Ketter?
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:13): Was there ever any communication between the minister or his office and the Prime Minister or his office regarding the nature of the relationship between the Deputy Prime Minister and his former media adviser? If so, when and with whom did this communication take place?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:14): That has been dealt with in a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning. I had no knowledge of the relationship between Mr Joyce and Ms Campion at the time and, as he has said in the statement this morning, she was not his partner at the time.
Disabled Prisoners
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (14:14): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Last week Human Rights Watch released a report entitled I needed help, instead I was punished, detailing the abuse and neglect of disabled prisoners in Australia, including cases in which disabled inmates were knowingly placed in the care of convicted sex offenders, forced to wear nappies due to a lack of accessible facilities and disproportionately placed in solitary confinement. In light of these horrifying revelations, will the government now commit to a royal commission into violence, abuse and neglect of people with disabilities in institutional and residential settings?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:15): I thank Senator Steele-John for his question. First of all, I say that I thought that situation was very appalling. I also say that the circumstances surrounding this incident are primarily the responsibility of the state government—in this case in Queensland. I'm happy to obtain further information for you in relation to this matter. That's my understanding of the situation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, a supplementary question.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (14:16): We didn't quite get an answer to my question there. I remind the chamber that the government announced the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory within 24 hours of the Don Dale youth centre scandal hitting the media. In light of the blatant urgency indicated by the report, will the government now commit to a royal commission into this issue?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:16): Senator Steele-John, I'm happy to take this matter on notice. I have indicated to you the information that I have available to me. I'm happy to take that part of your question on notice and advise you as soon as I can.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, a final supplementary question.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (14:17): In my final question I seek the minister's view on whether, in light of the revelations within the Human Rights Watch report and multiple other cases given to the Senate during its inquiries, the government will now assume responsibility for further atrocities that occur in residential settings from this point forward until the time at which they finally act on this issue and establish a royal commission.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:17): Senator Steele-John, I will certainly pass on your commentary to the minister. As I said, I will take your question on notice. This is a serious issue. My understanding is that it is an issue within the parameters of the jurisdiction of Queensland, but I will take your question on notice and get back to you as soon as I can.
Ministerial Staff
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:18): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, associated directions and guidelines, and the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards give the Prime Minister authority over the appointment of ministerial staff. Given that the minister yesterday told the Senate that ministerial staffing of Nationals offices is a matter for the National Party, what instrument or document delegates the Prime Minister's authority and to whom is it delegated?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:18): I thank Senator Farrell for that question. As I indicated to the Senate yesterday, both the office of the Prime Minister and, for that matter, the Department of Finance have an administrative role in relation to these appointments. In relation to the finance department, incidentally, that is an administrative role that they have in relation to all staff employed by members and senators, whether in government or in opposition. As far as the appointments of staff in Nationals ministers' offices and other Nationals members' offices are concerned, as I indicated yesterday, my advice is there is an overall allocation of staff—there's a staffing pool—that is allocated to Nationals ministers. These are decisions that are made by the National Party. As the Deputy Prime Minister advised in a statement again today, he did not discuss these matters with the Prime Minister or his office as Vikki was not his partner, so they were dealt with in the usual course of staff deployments and appointments within the National Party.
Senator Farrell: A point of order, Mr President: there was a quite specific question there. I won't repeat it—you don't like me repeating questions—but I would ask you to ask the minister to answer the question that I asked him.
The PRESIDENT: I can't instruct the minister how to answer the question. You've taken the opportunity to remind him of your question.
Senator CORMANN: Again, as I've said, the Nationals are responsible for decisions relating to staffing in the offices of Nationals members. The Prime Minister's office has an administrative role in informing the Department of Finance of changes, and all ministers, of course, are bound by the ministerial standards. The Deputy Prime Minister explained his circumstances.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Farrell?
Senator Farrell: The minister obviously has a prepared answer for a different set of questions. My question was a simple and straightforward one, and I request that you ask the minister to give us an answer.
The PRESIDENT: As you know, Senator Farrell, I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question. You've taken the opportunity again to remind him of the terms of the question. I remind the minister of the terms of the question asked, as you have just done.
Senator CORMANN: Senator Farrell clearly doesn't understand the answer that I'm providing to him. I've confirmed—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Carr on a point of order.
Senator Kim Carr: Mr President, on the question of relevance: the opposition has asked a direct question as to what instrument—what instrument? There has been the exercise of legal authority in regard to the appointment of staff. We're nowhere near answering that question. 'What instrument?' is the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Carr, the minister is being relevant to the question asked. I can't instruct him on how to answer. I've let you remind him of the question, but can we please allow the minister to go for a few more seconds before another—following my ruling. Sorry, Senator Cormann.
Senator CORMANN: Thank you, Mr President. I reject the premise of the question. I've confirmed that the Prime Minister has an administrative role in informing the Department of Finance of changes in employment arrangements.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: Well, I've just indicated to you that the Prime Minister has an administrative role, which of course he fulfils. But the decisions in relation to employment arrangements for Nationals ministers are made by the National Party.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:22): Mr President, I have a supplementary question. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, associated directions and guidelines and the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards set out various requirements related to the appointment of ministerial staff. Who carried out checks against these requirements when appointing Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's former media adviser to positions in the offices of Minister Canavan and Nationals whip Damian Drum?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:23): These are two separate questions. In relation to all members and senators—Mr Drum is a member of the House of Representatives—all of us select our staff. As I've indicated to you, there is a staffing pool that is allocated to the Nationals. My advice is that the Nationals at no time exceeded the staffing pool allocated to them. All of the appointments were made in the appropriate way, consistent with all of the legal and administrative requirements.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:23): Mr President, I have a final supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister's former media adviser was paid above the band? Who approved that payment?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:23): No.
The PRESIDENT: The minister's answered the question and resumed his seat.
Energy
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:24): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister advise the Senate what the government is doing to ensure an affordable and reliable supply of energy to Australian households and businesses?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:24): I thank Senator Fawcett for that question—a question of real importance to Australian households and businesses and an issue that directly affects them. That's why the Turnbull government is taking decisive action to support Australian families and Australian businesses with their electricity bills. It's why our action has included reforms that are guaranteeing and seeing power companies provide better deals to their consumers, securing domestic gas supply for Australia, and putting downward pressure on network costs to stop the gaming of the energy markets by network operators.
And, of course, we are now proposing, and have been proposing, much more than that through the adoption of the National Energy Guarantee, as recommended by the Energy Security Board. That will help ensure an end to energy subsidies that are passed on to consumers by way of higher consumer prices. It will create a more level playing field that ensures all types of energy are part of Australia's energy mix and are treated fairly according to their reliability, their affordability and their contribution to emissions; it will provide more certainty for investors, which in turn will lead to more supply and in turn lower prices; and it will reduce volatility, ensuring that reliable energy sources provide power when it's needed.
Together, all of these reforms—reforms that tackle energy supply, energy distribution and energy retailing—are a comprehensive package of measures that the Turnbull government has driven to make sure that Australian households and Australian businesses can have reliable and affordable energy whilst also ensuring that, as a country, we continue to meet our international obligations. What that will mean is that, over the long term, Australian businesses and Australian households can have confidence that when they switch the lights on the lights will go on, that when the bill comes in it will be more affordable, and that they can invest with confidence to create more jobs for more Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:26): Can the minister update the Senate as to why energy is so important to our cost of living and to businesses remaining competitive?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:26): We appreciate that many Australian households are doing it tough. That's why we want to make sure there is relief for their power bills. We know that many Australian businesses find high power costs a constraint which impacts on their ability to invest, to hire and to provide the wage growth that we all want to see.
That's why we've delivered the measures I outlined before and, importantly, it's why our National Energy Guarantee will see real benefits flow through—real benefits that are modelled to deliver a 23 per cent reduction in wholesale prices. That would make a meaningful difference to small businesses, such as the local supermarket in our home state of South Australia, Senator Fawcett, which would save almost half a million dollars per annum as a result of the National Energy Guarantee. The average household would see a saving of an estimated $400 off their power bill. That's why this policy has been so widely endorsed by consumer organisations, by those representing social welfare groups, by business and even by trade unions, because they all recognise the National Energy Guarantee will make a positive difference for Australia's future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:27): Can the minister inform the Senate of any challenges facing South Australia's energy system?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:27): Sadly, the home state of Senator Fawcett, of me and of Senator Farrell opposite is, of course, the canary in the coalmine when it comes to what has happened with energy, and it's been a sad and sorry story.
Senator Farrell interjecting—
Senator BIRMINGHAM: It's no wonder Senator Farrell wants to run interference, because South Australian power prices are 20 per cent more than in the rest of the country. Last year South Australia received around 50 per cent of its power from intermittent renewables, which caused not only reliability issues but extreme price volatility as well. We've seen a state government there which pretends the solution is to have a battery—a battery that will provide less than one per cent of the state's needs on any given day and that will have diesel generators which use some 80,000 litres an hour of diesel, the dirtiest fuel available. It's remarkable that these are the solutions the South Australian Labor government has on offer, whereas we are outlining clear plans to provide reliability and certainty and put downward pressure on prices for households and businesses.
Defence Procurement
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (14:28): My question is to Senator Cormann, representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Victoria has a brilliant track record of military vehicle engineering and manufacturing. The Bushmaster, used so extensively in the Afghanistan war, is a classic example. That's why Victoria should be the obvious choice to get the Defence department contracts for the Land 400, to be built by BAE Systems at Fishermans Bend in Melbourne. It's one of the largest R&D clusters in the world, with access to leading universities and testing and evaluation facilities, as well as the Defence Science and Technology Group. Will the minister confirm that the tender competition is now a fight—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Order! Pause the clock. I note that there is some cross-chamber state based interjecting. Can we please hear Senator Hinch's question in silence.
Senator HINCH: Will the minister confirm that the tender competition is now a fight between BAE and Victoria and a German company in Queensland?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:30): You've got to give Senator Hinch points for trying. What I can confirm is that there is a tender process underway and the tender process will continue to be conducted with the utmost integrity. The Commonwealth will conduct this important defence procurement based on getting the right capability at the right price. These are obviously all matters that are now appropriately considered by the appropriate experts. When the government is in the position to make a final judgement, relevant announcements will be made. These are not political decisions. These are decisions entirely on merit, based on securing the right defence capability at the right price.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hinch, a supplementary question.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (14:30): The senator mentioned 'merit'. Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Land 400 contract will be awarded purely on merit and not under some pork-barrelling deal to boost the government's dwindling base in Queensland, as shown in last year's state election?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:31): This is bordering on an inappropriate line of questioning, I would suggest. What I can confirm is what I said in my initial answer, and that is that the government will make the decision in relation to this procurement based on procuring the right capability at the right price. There is a tender process currently underway, which will continue to be conducted with the utmost integrity and be exclusively focused on what is in Australia's national interest.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hinch, do you have a final supplementary question?
Senator Hinch: In the interests of streamlining question time, I forfeit the superfluous supplementary question.
Broadband
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield: This morning the NBN CEO was quoted as saying that he's already considering building a 5G wireless network to bypass the copper NBN because parts of the network are unreliable and corroding. Can the Minister provide an update on what this would cost?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:32): As colleagues would be well aware, the NBN has a mandate from the government to conduct the rollout of the NBN, according to what's referred to as a multi-technology mix. That means that NBN can choose the technology that makes sense in a given area to see the NBN rolled out fastest and at lowest cost. That is the reason why the NBN will be completed by 2020—a good six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, on a point of order.
Senator O'Neill: Thank you, Mr President. The minister was asked if he could provide an update on what it would cost to replace the unreliable and corroding NBN with 5G. Could I ask you to draw his attention to the detail of the question?
The PRESIDENT: I can't instruct a minister how to answer the question. You have kindly reminded him. Senator Fifield.
Senator FIFIELD: As I was saying, the multi-technology mix approach is the reason why the NBN will be finished six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under those opposite, and at about $30 billion less cost.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Senator FIFIELD: I was able to update colleagues yesterday with the half-yearly results of the NBN. I am pleased to report that revenue is up, that we have more than half of the nation available to access the NBN. As a part of announcing the half-yearly results yesterday, Mr Morrow did undertake a number of interviews and in those—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Fifield. Senator O'Neill, on a point of order.
Senator O'Neill: I just draw your attention, Mr President, to the fact that 5G wireless has not been mentioned at all, at any point, of his answer. There are 41 seconds remaining. The minister needs to address that vital piece of information.
The PRESIDENT: I take the opportunity to remind the minister of the question asked. I call the minister.
Senator FIFIELD: As I was saying, Mr President, yesterday, as part of the half-yearly results, Mr Morrow did undertake a number of interviews and in those interviews he did canvas a number of issues, one of which was the issue of 5G and the issue of mobile substitutability for some of the services that the National Broadband Network provides. You would expect that those are the sorts of issues that the NBN CEO would canvass.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:35): Why is the minister spending $50 billion on a second-rate NBN that could be redundant by the time it's complete?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:35): The NBN, according to its last corporate plan, has a funding range and is on track for repeat funding of $49 billion. I reiterate that that is $30 billion less than would have been the case under the approach of those opposite. I also indicate to colleagues that, if an extra $30 billion had been spent, internet bills for Australian households would, on average, be $500 a year more.
A government senator: How much?
Senator FIFIELD: The internet bill for your average Australian household would be $500 a year more if the approach of those opposite, which would have seen the NBN cost $30 billion more, had been continued with.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:36): Given the second-rate copper NBN delivers slow speeds, is less reliable, costs more to maintain, is more exposed to wireless competition and is a financial liability to taxpayers, what was the point of building it?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:36): Let me point out the internal contradiction in what Senator O'Neill said. She expresses a concern about mobile competition. If $30 billion more had been spent, as was the plan of those opposite, that would mean that NBN would have to charge higher prices to retailers, which would mean that consumers would be paying $500 a year more on average. Let me let you in on a little secret: if the NBN charged more to retailers, and customers therefore paid more, there would be higher substitution of mobile for the NBN. Labor's business model—their approach, their expenditure—would have led to a much higher substitution of mobile for the NBN. If we're talking about economics adding up, under this side they do; under the approach of the others, no way.
Science meets Parliament
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Today is the first day of Science meets Parliament; can the minister update the Senate on the Turnbull government's commitment to science?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (14:38): You are correct: this week we celebrate the 20th annual Science meets Parliament. There will be a gala dinner tonight, which I understand a number of us are going to. Over the last 20 years it has very much become a celebration of collaboration between researchers, industry and government. Science meets Parliament is a key opportunity for government to hear directly from scientists on the important work they are doing and also on the issues their industry is facing. I also thank Science and Technology Australia for their continued role in coordinating this event.
Science is an essential element of our culture, our community and our economic prosperity. The government provided $10.1 billion last year for science and research, and this year we increased it to $10.3 billion. We have also delivered on the National Innovation and Science Agenda and have made a public commitment to science, as part of Science meets Parliament last year, through Australia's National Science Statement. We have also had a busy start to this year. Earlier this year I was in Townsville and, along with the Prime Minister, announced a further investment of $60 million to secure the future of the Great Barrier Reef. This investment will provide resources to help our scientists, led by the CSIRO and AIMS, to tackle the events which have hit the Great Barrier Reef over recent years. And Assistant Minister Seselja has launched TAIPAN, an instrument purpose-built for the UK Schmidt telescope by the Australian Astronomical Observatory. When we think of Australia's continuing prosperity, we think of science and innovation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:40): Can the minister outline how the government is helping to promote women in STEM—in particular, today's announcement of the Superstars of STEM?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (14:40): We have some absolutely outstanding superstars in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and the assistant minister and I have spent the past few days meeting with a number of them. Today I announced that the government will be expanding the Superstars of STEM program. The expansion will double, from 30 to 60, the number of women participating in the program and it will also extend it out for another four years. The Superstars of STEM creates opportunities for Australia's leading women in science, technology, engineering and maths to become strong public role models for the next generation. I think we all agree that 'you can't be it if you can't see it'. What these superstars do is role model to our next generation that they won't just have a job in science; they will have a career and they can reach the greatest heights. This is a sensational program and I look forward to working with Science and Technology Australia— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:41): Minister, how are the government's science policies helping to create more and better paid jobs for Australian?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (14:41): The Turnbull government has put in place the right policy settings across the board in relation to job creation. And they are now paying off, with our economy creating approximately 1,100 jobs per day—that's right, 1,100 jobs per day. Jobs growth in the last 12 months is almost five times stronger than in Labor's last year of government. Our science policies are a key part of that—from the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which helps small business and researchers get access to funding to expand and turn their ideas into a reality, to our announcement of the creation of the space agency. Our science announcements are creating exciting opportunities for Australian businesses to prosper and grow and ultimately create more jobs for Australians.
Energy
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Yesterday the minister was quoted as saying that the government had met its objectives on gas. Can the minister guarantee that Australian manufacturers using gas as a feedstock will be able to access the gas they need, at a price they can afford, to stay in business?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:43): I thank Senator Chisholm for his question. What I can say is that manufacturers in this country have a much better chance of accessing that gas under this government than they did under the previous government. We know that because the shadow energy minister for the Australian Labor Party, Mark Butler, said last year that everyone knew gas prices would go up when the LNG terminals were built. But the previous Labor government did nothing. They knew prices would go up, but they did nothing to protect the jobs and investment of this country and our manufacturing sector.
When we saw gas prices were at high levels early last year—certainly close to the prices in North Asia, if not higher—this government introduced the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which for the first time gave Australian governments the opportunity to control gas exports if needed. We would always prefer to make sure that we can manage these issues in gas markets through agreement to make sure that markets are allowed to be free and open and transparent. That is why, after introducing that mechanism with the gas industry, late last year a heads of agreement was signed to allow 64 petajoules of gas to come back onto the domestic market. What that has led to is that the ACCC concluded in December last year that, this year, rather than facing a deficit of more than 50 petajoules of gas, we now potentially have an expected 20 petajoules of gas available for manufacturers. It is a better outcome.
That does not mean there is not more work to do. That does not mean that manufacturers in this country are not under pressure. But, through the action the government have taken, we have helped alleviate the pressure they were under. The prices have certainly come down and they have come down to levels that better reflect international prices and the cost of production here in Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:45): Is the minister satisfied that Australia's largest manufacturer of fertiliser, Incitec Pivot, will not be forced to close its Queensland Gibson Island plant? Can the minister confirm that, if they were to close, it would result in the loss of around 1,500 jobs?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:45): I thank Senator Chisholm again. I am sure that Senator Chisholm does not want to see the Incitec Pivot factory close. Nor do I. We want to try and make sure there is a future for fertiliser manufacturing in this country, and last year we made the announcement about the Australian domestic gas security mechanism at Incitec Pivot's manufacturing facilities on Gibson Island. I believe it's the only facility in the country that produces urea, an important input to farming. We want to see that continue. I have spoken to gas producers in only the last few weeks about what options might be able to help Incitec Pivot maintain and access gas for the long term. But can I say that, if we want to keep that there for the long term, we need some of these state and territory Labor governments to allow gas to be produced in this country, not to have a situation like in Victoria, where they have a moratorium on conventional use of gas, or the Northern Territory, where they're sitting on potentially game-changing gas resources and have not done anything in the year and a half they have been in government. We need long-term supplies of gas to guarantee manufacturing in this country.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, final supplementary question.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:46): Has the minister received any advice from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources on the extra costs for Australian farmers if Incitec Pivot ceases production? Is it the case that a different supplier will mean large additional costs for the re-equipping necessary for a different fertiliser? How much will this add to the cost of living for the average Australian?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:46): I have not received advice directly from the minister for agriculture on this issue, but what the government has done is commission a number of reports from the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in the past few years to assess the kinds of impacts that Senator Chisholm has raised. In particular, in early, I believe, 2016 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission produced a report about the potential for higher gas prices to flow through to other industries, including commercial and industrial industries like those that produce fertilisers. At the time, the ACCC said that markets were working and no further action was needed, but last year in the gas supply opportunities report the Australian Energy Market Operator identified a deficit in gas markets, and that's why we have taken action to introduce the domestic security gas mechanism, which gives the Australian government the potential to allow more gas to stay domestically, provide more gas to manufacturers like Incitec Pivot and ultimately protect those jobs in our manufacturing sector.
Health Care
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:48): My question is to the great rural advocate the Minister for Sport and Minister for Rural Health, Senator McKenzie: The Rural Health Stakeholder Roundtable was convened in Canberra last week.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator O'SULLIVAN: I know you people don't want do hear anything about health in the bush, but it would be good to sit quietly. You might learn something.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, please return to the question.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Can the minister update the Senate as to how the government is working to improve local health services in rural communities?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:48): Yes, Senator O'Sullivan, I can. Thank you very much for your question. Like all senators on this side, Senator O'Sullivan understands that rural communities face specific health challenges and deserve localised service delivery to ensure they receive the same level of care as the rest of the country. Rural health is at the core of our government's approach to developing health policy. A dedicated National Rural Health Commissioner, implemented by this government, is integral to achieving this outcome and will also champion rural health reform. We've established the Rural Health Stakeholder Roundtable to bring key organisations together to help inform our policy development and improve health outcomes in rural and regional Australia.
On Friday I chaired the roundtable meeting to facilitate discussions on important issues, including how we can better support more health professionals undertaking their training and careers in the bush. We know many regional communities find it difficult to recruit and retain doctors. While there is a good supply of GPs nationally, there is absolutely a maldistribution of the medical workforce, which unfairly affects rural and regional service delivery. The evidence tells us that when health students complete the majority of their training in a regional setting they are more likely to practise rurally upon graduation. Carolyn Reimann, a student from James Cook University in Cairns, who I met on Friday at the roundtable, hopes to pursue a career as a rural generalist. To further examine the issue, a distribution working group has been established to provide me with the policy advice I need to address the maldistribution.
As someone who is of the regions, and the responsible minister, I'm committed to responding to the needs of local communities and to ensuring we have an appropriate mix of health professionals and services to deliver quality health care to all Australians no matter where they live. Through more than 40 programs specifically designed to target rural areas, the government is increasing the capacity, quality and distribution of our healthcare workforce.
The PRESIDENT (14:50): Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:50): How well the minister is settling into her new job! How is the appointment of the National Rural Health Commissioner, and his involvement on the roundtable, supporting this outcome?
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Minister, I'll assume that Senator O'Sullivan was behind you, so you heard the question better than me.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:50): Thank you, again, Senator O'Sullivan. The National Rural Health Commissioner, Professor Paul Worley, attended his first roundtable meeting last week after commencing his appointment in November last year. The commission's priority is to develop a rural generalist pathway, to recognise the complex demands of doctors working in rural communities. GPs in rural towns may have to treat diabetes, support a patient with complex mental health needs or provide an anaesthetic at the local hospital, or they may have to perform surgery or deliver a baby, in conjunction with seeing patients as part of their everyday general practice.
On Friday, I was pleased to announce a landmark agreement between the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine to develop a national framework for this medical speciality, known as the Collingrove Agreement. The commissioner has been working very closely with the two colleges to meet this point. Many doctors in the bush provide the only access to specialist medical care service, and the rural generalist pathway recognises the advanced skillset rural doctors need.
The PRESIDENT (14:52): Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:52): Minister, how does the work of the roundtable contribute to rural and regional health reform?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:52): That's a very good question. Let me tell you all about it. The Rural Health Stakeholder Roundtable, established by the government, promotes the strategic discussion—
Senator Kim Carr: What about a really good answer?
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Carr!
Senator McKENZIE: It's coming, Senator Carr.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Please continue, Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr President, for your protection. By bringing together key stakeholders—
Senator Cameron: No wonder Malcolm thinks you lot are a joke!
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron! Senator Collins and Senator Carr! There a lot of noise on my left at the moment.
Senator McKENZIE: To support the development of rural health policy, 19 peak bodies represent the rural health workforce, including doctors, Indigenous health organisations, nurses and allied health professionals. The roundtable provides a valuable opportunity for the government and stakeholders to collaborate and discuss ways to improve the delivery of services and better target programs. Last Friday's discussion focused on the rural generalist pathway, Indigenous workforce issues and examining health workforce data. Finding solutions to some of the barriers faced by regional communities is our priority.
Deputy Prime Minister
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:53): My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Is it the Prime Minister's intention to have Deputy Prime Minister Joyce act as the Prime Minister while Prime Minister Turnbull is absent from Australia next week?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:53): Yes.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:53): Sky News is reporting that the Prime Minister has been ringing National Party members of parliament and senators to gauge support for Deputy Prime Minister Joyce. Are these reports correct and, if so, has the Prime Minister also canvassed alternative acting arrangements?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:54): That story is absolutely incorrect.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:54): Does Deputy Prime Minister Joyce maintain the Prime Minister's full confidence?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:54): Yes.
Broadband
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:54): I have a real question, to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister advise the Senate of the employment opportunities to Indigenous Australians being provided through the rollout of the National Broadband Network?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): I thank Senator Duniam for his question. I'm very pleased to advise colleagues that, among the 30,000 jobs created through the rollout of the NBN, there's a particular focus on providing training and employment for Indigenous Australians within their local communities. All of NBN's construction and maintenance partners are required to prepare and report on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement and participation management plans, which include targets for Indigenous employment and supplier spend.
In financial year 2017, NBN's delivery partners achieved, on average, 4.5 per cent Indigenous employment on NBN projects, which was in line with the specified target of between four and five per cent. NBN's delivery partners also spent over $14 million with Indigenous suppliers in financial year 2017. In one example, NBN's construction contractor, Fulton Hogan, became aware that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers from the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority, who were recruited for cultural heritage monitoring of earthworks, were also keen to be engaged with construction. Instead of solely being observers, these workers were able to participate in the NBN build in South Australia's south-east. Many of these workers have gained technical training, funded by NBN, and completed certificates in civil construction and telecommunication cabling.
Internally, NBN is also engaging with existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and graduates on employment strategies that will attract more Indigenous workers and on the range of professional development opportunities available within the company and more broadly across the project. This is some extremely good news for workers to have this opportunity and to gain further skills.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:56): I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if the minister could outline what the NBN's doing to attract Australia's best and brightest graduates.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:57): I'm pleased again to update colleagues on NBN's commitment in this area. In fact, this commitment has recently been recognised in the Top 100 Graduate Employers and Future Leaders awards, where NBN took out the award for the most popular employer in the infrastructure, utilities and logistics category. NBN offers a highly sought-after two-year graduate program and encourages applicants from all backgrounds and a range of study disciplines, including engineering, business, commerce and IT among others. Each graduate is provided with an individually tailored employment experience, aligned to their area of study and career interest, which includes four main rotations throughout the various business units. Graduates at NBN have an opportunity to play a part in the delivery of Australia's largest and most complex infrastructure project. They're individually supported by a program manager and previous NBN graduates.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:58): How's the coalition's approach to rolling the network out helping to keep internet bills lower and taxes down, particularly for Australia's small business sector?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:58): The rollout is now more than halfway complete. There are an estimated 20,000 businesses connecting to the NBN network each month. Close to 80 per cent of regional Australia now has access to superfast broadband, meaning that small business owners in country towns and regional centres can enjoy access equal to that of metropolitan areas. As the rollout continues to scale, NBN is enabling businesses of all sizes to tap into a whole range of applications.
Of course, this progress, which has seen over one million NBN services activated since July, is only possible because of the turnaround that's been effected in the project. Connecting more homes and businesses sooner is the key to keeping internet bills affordable and the overall cost of the project as low as possible for taxpayers. For every million connections completed, more than half a billion dollars is added to NBN's annual revenue.
Infrastructure
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (14:59): My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Scullion. I refer to the government's Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics yearbook. Can the minister confirm that, under the Liberal-National government, annual infrastructure investment in Australia has plunged by 17 per cent since 2013? What is the total cost to the Australian economy of the reduction in infrastructure investment of $9.7 billion a year?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:59): I'm not able to provide a detailed answer. It's really important that I provide accurate answers, so I'll take that question on notice.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, a supplementary question?
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:00): Yesterday the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport referred to the Inland Rail project when defending the Turnbull government's lack of infrastructure investment in Tasmania. Can the minister confirm that the Inland Rail project is from Brisbane to Melbourne and unfortunately doesn't include a bridge to cross Bass Strait?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I'll call the minister when there's order on both sides of the chamber.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right and my left! We can wait here all afternoon. Senator Scullion, there's no need to stay on your feet.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:01): I thank the senator for the question. If I can just start with the bridge over the Bass Strait, I can tell you that Territorians are screaming that they can't get a subsidy for freight. Can I just say what I can commit to. Over the next 10 years the coalition government is committed to delivering $75 billion in infrastructure funding and financing, from 2017-18 to 2026-27, which includes the funding for the $10 billion National Rail Program and equity for the two biggest infrastructure investments—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Scullion, please resume your seat. Senator Brown, on a point of order.
Senator Carol Brown: Yes, on relevance. My question was: can the minister confirm that the Inland Rail project is from Brisbane to Melbourne?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, you had a preamble to that, which I believe the minister is being relevant to.
Senator SCULLION: Yes, I can confirm that that's the case. I can also confirm that Tasmania doesn't actually exist within those two places. If I can go on: one of the things is that we're not only investing; it's the way we invest. Inland Rail passes through the property of so many of our First Australians— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: I call Senator Brown for a final supplementary question.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:02): Why is the Turnbull government compounding the impact of reduced private sector investment in infrastructure by halving Commonwealth infrastructure investment over the coming decade from 0.4 per cent of GDP to 0.2 per cent?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:02): What I can advise is that, for the Midland Highway, we, the Commonwealth government, the Australian government, provided $400 million out of a total of $500 million. It's going to provide 235 jobs—
An honourable senator: In Tasmania?
Senator SCULLION: in Tasmania. For the freight rail revitalisation, we provided $59.8 million out of a total of $119 million. It's under construction, with 200 jobs. For the Hobart Airport Interchange it is $24 million out of $30 million. It's going to provide—it hasn't started construction—for a total of 360 jobs. But every one of these infrastructure projects has to look at Indigenous procurement and Indigenous employment as a fundamental tenet of planning all of these very important infrastructure investments.
Senator Cormann: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Broadband
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:04): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by Senator O'Neill today relating to the National Broadband Network.
Since our return this year, we've had Senator Fifield coming into the chamber and rabbiting on about the great success of his NBN rollout. However, we need to let him in on the secret that the rest of Australia knows: what a dog he's rolling out. It's a lemon. It was only supposed to cost $29 billion—that's what they said. They said that the market would come in and put in any additional funds that were required to finish the job. Instead of that happening, because what they'd rolled out was so bad the government couldn't get people to invest, they've had to tip in another $20 billion themselves. So now, at a cost of $49 billion, we've got a copper-loaded lemon distributed across the country.
And this morning the government's second-rate NBN took another hit. The NBN CEO, Mr Morrow, has been quoted overnight as saying that already he's considering building a 5G wireless network to bypass the copper NBN, the one that this minister keeps coming in and telling us is really good, bragging about his numbers—except that, every time he says another 10,000, another 15,000, another 20,000 Australians have had the Malcolm Turnbull model of the NBN inflicted on them, I feel the pain and suffering of our local communities, all of those people out there who have had a terrible time managing their connection to the NBN, and all of those businesses. Let me just say that 83 per cent—not a small number—of small businesses say they lack confidence in the government's NBN delivery. Now that's got to be a fail by any measure, yet this minister, this senator, keeps coming in and telling us what a great job he's doing. The gap between reality and Mr Fifield's version of it is absolutely unfathomable. I cannot understand why he doesn't understand the Australian people's concerns about this copper based technology he is rolling out.
The reason that we had Mr Morrow say that he's going to have to go to 5G is that he knows what the government has been trying to deny for a long time—that parts of the Malcolm Turnbull version of this NBN are unreliable and corroding. There are thousands of Australians out there who have what the NBN euphemistically call 'service class 0'. That means they don't know when they're going to get to you, because they've got big problems. And why have they got big problems? Because they're trying to force information down a copper line that's landing at a node at the speed of light. They're trying to splice together 21st-century technology with a technology that should have been left in the last century, and, where those two things meet, it's not working out. Mr Morrow even knows it. He's saying: 'It's failing. We might have to go to 5G.' But this minister didn't want to answer those questions; he doesn't understand the dog that he is inflicting on the Australian people.
Today we've seen Senator Fifield failing once again to take responsibility for the mess that's been created by this Turnbull government, and, by doing so, he is absolutely failing to understand or recognise the real impacts that this mess is having on ordinary Australian men and women and the businesses right across this country. Every single member and senator who is in this place will have had hundreds and hundreds of Australians contact them in their offices and say: 'Please help me out. I'm about to lose my absolute patience with the NBN. I cannot survive this any longer.' We had evidence given to the NBN committee on the Central Coast of New South Wales of one gentleman at Masters Beach who lost in the order of $70,000 from his business in the lead-up to Christmas because this government just doesn't get it. It just doesn't understand, and it continues to deny the reality that businesses right across this country are being compromised in their capacity to compete in a global market. They're being compromised by constant dropouts. They're being compromised by slow speeds because the technology that this government's inflicted on them won't deliver what they need to do business in the 21st century.
Australians are concerned about the costs, and our government should also be concerned about the costs to maintain an old copper technology that is redundant. We know that our company, NBN, is an Australian company—it belongs to all of us. And yet, under the custodianship of this government, it has failed to deliver us the technology we need for the 21st century. They can call it Malcolm Turnbull's multi-technology mix, but we know it's Malcolm Turnbull's mess.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (15:09): I simply remind the honourable senator opposite that hyperbole is never a substitute for facts. The simple facts are these. Labor missed every single one of its NBN rollout targets. Let me remind the Senate of that: every single Labor target for the NBN rollout was missed, was not achieved and was not delivered, whereas the coalition government has in fact been smashing the targets. Let's not forget that, under Labor, the NBN fell 83 per cent short of its 2013 rollout target. So it failed to deliver that which it promised the Australian people by not just one or two per cent—a rounding error—but 83 per cent.
You would think that the Australian Labor Party, clothed with that shameful record, would have some sense of decency and seek to sidestep any debate about the NBN. But, in typical Australian Labor Party style, what they seek to do is mislead the Australian people. They do it time and time again. At the last election they did it so despicably with the 'Mediscare' campaign—a false and dishonest campaign seeking to mislead the Australian people—and now today they are doing it again with the NBN. Their policy was developed on the back of an envelope and, whilst they were in government, they failed to deliver by 83 per cent. However, I am pleased to report that, as we speak, 7,000 premises are being connected every working day.
Senator Reynolds: How many?
Senator ABETZ: Senator Reynolds, 7,000 premises are being connected every single day.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator ABETZ: Of course, when you roll out these facts, what do you get? A cacophony of interjections from those opposite. When you hit them with the facts, they are unable to deal with reality.
I simply say to those opposite and, more importantly, to the Australian people: don't look at what the Australian Labor Party promise; look at what they actually deliver. They promised us this grand National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was completely underfunded but they had to roll it out on the basis of cheap politics. They had a health policy without any funding attached to it. They also had an education policy without any funding attached to it. They will always speak using hyperbole, trying to get the Australian people to vote for them. You then ask: does the rhetoric match the delivery? You have to give the Australian Labor Party 100 per cent for their consistency. They constantly fail to deliver on that which they promise the Australian people.
The simple facts are: they failed by 83 per cent their 2013 rollout target. That is what Labor had when they were in government. There was a change of government and we have now sought to clean up the mess that we inherited. What a lemon we inherited from former Senator Conroy and the Australian Labor Party. Today we are seeking to clean up the mess of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, just as we are trying to clean up the mess Labor left us in relation to the budget and just as we are trying to clean up the mess they left us in the health and education portfolios. Having left us with all of these messes, the Australian Labor Party then come in here and pontificate to us and the Australian people on how we should be doing better. There is the phrase that actions speak so much louder than words. I simply say to the Australian people and those opposite: don't listen to Labor's words, don't listen to their hyperbole and rhetoric; have a look at what they actually deliver. (Time expired)
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (15:14): Today we have heard about another saga with regard to the NBN rollout, which that side of the chamber know as the multi-technology mix and this side of the chamber obviously know as Malcolm Turnbull's mess or even the multi-technology mess. I've said in a number of speeches in this place, over quite a number of years, that, given the increasing demand of Australian businesses and households for fast broadband, Mr Turnbull's second-rate copper national broadband network will largely be redundant by the time it's built. Now, with the emergence of 5G mobile services, we face the prospect of more homes and businesses abandoning the network in favour of mobile-only services.
The 5G providers like Telstra and Optus know what consumers need and want, and they're willing to provide it. A study by Venture Insights, co-funded by the ACCC, reports that as many as 30 per cent of households could abandon the NBN and switch to wireless—30 per cent. Yet NBN's corporate plan continues to cling to the assumption that only 15 per cent of users on the inferior multi-technology mix network would abandon the NBN for wireless services. NBN Co's recent announcement about 5G technology is obviously an admission that the second-rate copper network has failed. The MTM rollout has been a disaster from the beginning. The cost of the rollout has increased from $29.5 billion to $49 billion—a $20 billion blowout—including a recent potential $450 million blowout to the cost of the troubled HFC network.
But the problems with the government's second-rate network don't end there. Oh, no! The copper based network costs more to maintain over its lifetime, yet it generates less revenue because it cannot reach the high speeds that consumers are willing to pay for. It's a less reliable service with slower speeds. In some cases, users who have purchased a copper NBN service have ended up with a slower and less reliable service than their previous ADSL plans. Senator O'Neill mentioned concerns of people in New South Wales. Well, in Tassie, let me tell you—and Senator Brown, I am sure, will attest to this—there are areas in Tasmania which are 20 minutes from the city centre—Hobart—that the NBN left off the map to start with. When we had consultations, it took them months and months and months to be able to get these people any form of access to the network. There are other areas in Tassie that I know have been left off the map altogether. Tasmanians, I think, are really underwhelmed with the government's approach to the NBN.
As I said, the copper network costs more to maintain over its lifetime, yet it generates less revenue because it cannot reach the highest speeds that consumers are willing to pay for. It's a less reliable service and it's much, much slower. In some cases, the economics of copper are nothing short of a liability. It's no wonder that consumer complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman have gone through the roof. Demand for broadband speeds are such that it's inevitable that most Australians will soon require and demand a full fibre network. But the rollout of the copper network means that the pathway to the fibre network will be expensive and wasteful—an expense that could have been avoided under Labor's plans.
So we see lots of dissatisfaction with Mr Turnbull's second-rate NBN reflected in a number of surveys. Let me put some facts on the table to refute some of the things that Senator Abetz stated. According to Recon, 83 per cent of small businesses lack confidence in the delivery of the network—83 per cent—and 54 per cent of small businesses believe they will be left behind as the digital economy develops, with technology infrastructure identified as a key barrier to starting a new business. According to the New South Wales Business Chamber, 43 per cent of businesses are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the NBN—43 per cent. So we've already wasted enough money and opportunity on the farce that is the MTM. The longer we take to commit to Labor's plan for a full fibre rollout to 93 per cent of premises, the more we risk being left behind in the global economy.
I just want to point out that Rebecca White, the Labor leader in my home state of Tasmania, understands this. That's why Tasmanian Labor has committed to working across all levels of government and the private sector to facilitate the rollout of fibre-to-the-premises across northern Tasmania. (Time expired)
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (15:19): I too rise to take note of Minister Fifield's answer. After nearly four years in this place, the chutzpah of those opposite never ceases to amuse me, talking about the NBN and other projects that they implemented, developed and completely stuffed up. The list is long: pink batts, school halls, unfunded NDIS programs, and the NBN is yet another one of their failures. I remind those opposite of exactly the mess you left us. Here we have probably one of the largest infrastructure projects ever in this country—and how was it developed and planned? It wasn't on the back of a wine-stained coaster in a VIP jet with some great idea your colleague Stephen Conroy had, 'Let's do this NBN'?
Senator Carol Brown: He doesn't even drink.
Senator REYNOLDS: He hadn't been drinking? It was just a wine-stained coaster?
Senator Bilyk: He doesn't drink alcohol.
Senator REYNOLDS: How does it explain this project? That's even worse, if he came up with this plan sober. Good Lord! After all of their pontificating, let's have a look at what they left this government four short years ago. After six years of Labor, how many households do you think were connected?
Senator Anning: None.
Senator REYNOLDS: No, there were more than none; 51,000 were connected across the entire country under Labor. Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN policy would have cost $30 billion more, under their own figures, and taken six to eight years longer to complete. This project, like so many of the others, shows that there are two maxims in politics: never let the Labor Party near taxpayers' money, because you know they're going to stuff it up, and never let them near any large-scale project management, particularly infrastructure, because they will waste taxpayers' money and completely stuff it up. We've seen that with the NDIS and the NBN.
Let's look at the facts that not even those opposite can dispute. Labor paid $6 billion for the NBN to reach just three per cent of Australian premises. In fact the rollout was so badly managed by those opposite that the contractors downed tools and stopped construction in four states. Remember that? Those opposite try very hard to whitewash history, how much you spent, how little you delivered, 51,000 households. Tell me I'm wrong. It cost $6 billion to roll it out for three per cent of premises. How many rollout targets, on their own dodgy planning, do you think Labor met? When they spent $6 billion to reach three per cent of households and 51,000 households taking it up, how many of their milestones do you think they met? Not a single one.
What is it like under the coalition after four years? The NBN is now available to half of all Australian premises, or more than 6.2 million—six years, 50,000 households; four years, 6.2 million premises. It has over three million active connections, and all Australian premises will be connected by 2020. The facts are irrefutable, and nobody over there can deny these reported facts. Our NBN is connecting more users every two weeks than Labor connected in six years. We are connecting 30,000 premises per week—two weeks, 60,000 premises; six years, 51,000 premises. Despite all the howling of those opposite, trying to rewrite the history of this project, the NBN is on track to be available to two-thirds of Australian premises this year, with more than nine out of 10 premises in 2019 and, as I said, all Australians connected by 2020. Those are the facts. (Time expired)
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:24): I too rise to take note today of the appalling answers from Minister Fifield to the very serious question from Senator O'Neill on the parlous state of broadband communications under his watch and under the watch of Prime Minister Turnbull. Senator O'Neill sought a simple answer from Minister Fifield on the cost of the NBN Co CEO's thought bubble to potentially build a 5G network because the copper network is already not up to standard. Minister Fifield had no idea—just like Minister Fifield and Mr Turnbull have no idea about how much their multimedia technology mess is going to cost. Minister Fifield said that the NBN has a mandate to conduct the rollout under the multi-technology mix—or multi-technology mess, as it's currently known—which he says will see it rolled out fastest and at lowest cost but not best quality. The Liberals and Nationals are happy with quick and dirty broadband—definitely a direction from the top. The minister found it hard to mention 5G in his answer. One wonders why. Does he not support the CEO? Does he not want Australians to harness the immense opportunities that would be afforded by 5G? Does he not want NBN Co to invest? We just don't know—and he probably doesn't know either.
One thing the minister did say is that he believes that his broadband rollout will cost $30 billion less under a full fibre rollout. But the minister never presents the rationale behind his ridiculous argument. That's because the minister's argument just doesn't stack up. NBN Co's CEO, Bill Morrow, and CFO, Stephen Rue, said to a Senate committee that the $30 billion figure is not a continuation of Labor's full-fibre NBN but what it would have cost if it had been restarted in 2015. I repeat: stating that Labor's full-fibre NBN would cost $30 billion more than the multi-technology mess is just not true. It wasn't true when Malcolm Turnbull first said it, and it isn't true today. It's a bad political argument with no logical underpinnings. The minister should consult with his NBN Co executives—who, it has to be said, are doing the best they can with a very bad statement of expectations from Minister Fifield and Minister Cormann.
I want to share four simple facts about the NBN rollout that Minister Fifield should also address in the near future—four facts that tell the story of how the man who supposedly created the internet in Australia completely fell into a pit of rotten copper, dashed hopes and bungled deadlines. Fact No. 1 is that three-quarters of all fibre-to-the-node premises will not be able to reach 100 megabits per second. Fact No. 2 is that over 200,000 premises on copper will not be able to receive the minimum 25 megabits per second that was promised by Prime Minister Turnbull. Fact No. 3 is that there are around 80 million hours of network downtime per year across the multi-technology mix. Fact No. 4 is that about $100 million has been spent purchasing almost 17,000 kilometres of copper wire. They're not my numbers. These are numbers that were provided to the Senate committees by the government and NBN Co. These four facts are part of the reason that NBN Co's CEO is out in the press today saying he is considering his options: copper isn't working, it's not actually cheaper than fibre, it's not as effective as fibre and it can never be more effective than fibre. The overuse of copper is all about a bad political argument made by Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott almost a decade ago. They were so desperate to find a point of difference with an excellent Labor government policy—and the people of Australia are now suffering as a result of that political point of difference.
In Tasmania, the Turnbull government claims that the network is complete. But there are still thousands of premises that can't get connected. No matter how many phone calls people make, and despite NBN promising that the micronodes would be connected by October last year, it is not finished. And, worse still, for most on the north-west coast of Tasmania—where I live—which is one of the poorest parts of this country, there is no upgrade path from fibre to the node to full fibre. So while the big cities of Launceston and Hobart skate ahead with gigabyte connections, the north-west coast is left behind by this government. And then when the minister is asked about 5G as an alternative, all he can do is bleat incorrect facts and political spin. Thank goodness this government's time is almost up! (Time expired)
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (15:30): On the issue of the NBN, I heard Senator O'Neill saying that the NBN is a lemon. It is a lemon, but what the Labor Party doesn't understand is that it was their lemon first, and at least the government has tried to make lemonade out of it. I find it surprising that people during question time waste their questions. Senator Fifield was attempting to answer the question and trying to answer it correctly with his version of the facts. But it shouldn't surprise me when it comes to question time and answering questions like this. Even Senator Cormann today, in answering a question I was putting through him to the Minister for Defence, said that my question was 'bordering on inappropriate'. I suppose he would think it was bordering on inappropriate when the Dorothy Dixers on his side of the chamber come up and the first question is usually some anodyne, milquetoast Dorothy Dixer that that side puts up. Question No. 1 is a milk sop, question No. 2 is usually just excruciatingly boring and question No. 3 is some saccharine sort of press release. If we get rid of questions Nos 2 and 3 in question time, we could get more questions in, we could have more transparency from the government, and the Labor Party on the opposition benches and the crossbench especially would be happier for it.
Question agreed to.
Disabled Prisoners
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:32): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Fierravanti-Wells) to a question without notice asked by Senator Steele-John today relating to the treatment of people with disabilities in institutional and residential settings.
In my time in this chamber I've learnt that many things that come before us are difficult. Many things are complex. They require careful judgement by this place to balance competing needs and interests of the peoples and organisations which send us here. However, the issue of abuse and neglect faced by people with disabilities in institutional and residential settings should not be and is not one of those issues.
So that nobody in this chamber can claim that they do not know what is within the contents of the Human Rights Watch report, I shall repeat it: people being forced to spend hours and hours in nappies because of the inaccessibility of the prison environment, people being incarcerated within solitary confinement for days on end and people being cared for by registered and convicted sex offenders who are paid to perform that service. This is the lived experience of the Australians with disabilities within our prison system. And these horrendous cases detailed within the report sit alongside the litany of disgusting cases which were brought before the Senate inquiry two years or more ago.
There can be no more urgent issue in the space of human rights in Australia in relation to people with disabilities than the issue which has been brought to light by the Human Rights Watch report. There is an urgent need for the establishment of a royal commission, such as that which was created in the aftermath of the Don Dale reporting, to ensure that these cases of disgusting rights violations are documented and addressed. There can be no excuse from this government for delaying on this issue. The millions of Australians with disabilities demand that you take heed of this issue and that you act with the swiftness and decisiveness that you have in the past proven yourself capable of when the political environment necessitated it. Your conscience should necessitate that action of you, and, if it does not, I would ask you to reflect upon how the hell you manage to sleep at night. I thank the chamber for its time.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Anning to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) every human being, no matter what stage of development, is sacred and is deserving of the rights to life and liberty, and
(ii) mothers should be informed about the development of the unborn baby, the procedure of termination and the risks, both physical and psychological, due to the operation, and alternatives, such as adoption; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to fund counselling for women in relation to pregnancy terminations. ( general business notice of motion no. 709)
4bd80c6b-28cd-4d62-9def-e92b1dca0cb5Senator Bilyk: To move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 14 February 2018 is World Cholangiocarcinoma Day, an international effort to raise awareness of a form of liver cancer that develops in the bile duct cells,
(ii) 1 in 67,000 Australians are diagnosed each year with cholangiocarcinoma – around one per day,
(iii) in Australia, liver cancers generally have a five-year survival rate of around 17%, and
(iv) many cholangiocarcinoma patients are diagnosed too late for potentially curative surgery; and
(b) recognises the need for continued efforts to improve the diagnosis, treatment and survival rates for rare and less common cancers, such as cholangiocarcinoma. ( general business notice of motion no. 710)
Senator Singh to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) welcomes the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee's positive recommendation of the 'game-changing' HIV prevention drug, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), on 9 February 2018;
(b) notes that:
(i) every averted HIV transmission saves close to $1 million in lifetime care and treatment costs,
(ii) while significant advancements have been made, the HIV epidemic remains one of the greatest public health challenges facing Australia, its region and the world, and
(iii) progress towards ending HIV in Australia has stalled at around 1000 notifications a year, and that the situation is particularly urgent in Indigenous communities, with HIV rates now trending above the rate of non-Indigenous Australians for the first time ever; and
(c) urges:
(i) the Minister for Health to list PrEP on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme urgently, thereby expanding affordable access to an estimated 31,000 people, and
(ii) the Turnbull Government to match Labor's commitment to make HIV history in Australia, including $10 million a year to renew Australia's HIV response by restoring the funding and capacity that the Government has cut from HIV peak organisations, and $3 million a year improve prevention, testing and treatment for 'hidden populations' who fall outside the traditional HIV response. ( general business notice of motion no. 711)
Senator Ketter to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in June 2019:
The indicators of, and impact of, regional inequality in Australia, with particular reference to government policies and programs in the following areas:
(a) fiscal policies at federal, state and local government levels;
(b) improved co-ordination of federal, state and local government policies;
(c) regional development policies;
(d) infrastructure;
(e) education;
(f) building human capital;
(g) enhancing local workforce skills;
(h) employment arrangements;
(i) decentralisation policies;
(j) innovation;
(k) manufacturing; and
(l) any other related matters.
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) commends our current and former armed servicemen and servicewomen for their service to our country;
(b) condemns cowardly senators who use parliamentary privilege to make allegations of criminality or racism against those personnel, and thereby bringing our armed forces and personnel into disrepute, without presenting immediate proof of their claims; and
(c) urges honourable senators to use parliamentary privilege with responsibility and respect. ( general business notice of motion no. 712)
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the South Australian state election will occur on 17 March 2018, in which the Weatherill Labor Government will be asking voters to endorse it to serve 20 continuous years in office;
(b) encourages all South Australian voters to carefully analyse the policies, track record, voting record and political ideology of party leaders participating in that election; and
(c) urges the next South Australian Government, however constituted, to immediately implement policies to address South Australia's energy reliability, affordability and overall economic position so as to attract business investment, reduce unemployment and be a stronger contributor to the national economy. ( general business notice of motion no. 713)
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) holds that human life is more important than animal life; and
(b) calls on the Government to prioritise human life in all portfolio areas, including the environment portfolio when balancing fire prevention against biodiversity conservation. ( general business notice of motion no. 714)
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the latest waiting list for aged care home care packages indicates that there are more than 100,000 vulnerable older Australians waiting for the home care package for which they have been approved,
(ii) the latest figures showed that the waiting list had grown by more than 12,000 between 1 July and 30 September 2017, and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages,
(iii) the majority of the older Australians on the waiting list are those waiting for level three and level four packages, who have high care needs, including many with dementia, and
(iv) the Turnbull Government's own website states that most of these vulnerable older Australians will be waiting more than a year for a package;
(b) condemns the Turnbull Government for failing to fund a single new home care package in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook update; and
(c) calls on the Turnbull Government to make a genuine commitment to fix the home care package waiting list and properly address this growing crisis. ( general business notice of motion no. 715)
Senator Dodson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the failure of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (the Minister) to:
(i) provide a clear statement on the future of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Housing,
(ii) detail future plans, for the states of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland, and the Northern Territory, on the available funding for remote housing, and
(iii) give a clear account of negotiations with those jurisdictions on future funding arrangements;
(b) calls on the Minister to provide all correspondence between himself and his Department and state and territory ministers, and all correspondence between officials on the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Housing, since the beginning of December 2017, by 5 pm on 15 February 2018;
(c) requires the Minister to attend the Senate at 12 pm on 20 March 2018 so that, prior to government business being called on, any senator may ask for an explanation for the failure to engage in detailed consultations with the states and territories on remote housing; and
(d) resolves that:
(i) in the event that the Minister provides an explanation, any senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice—That the Senate take note of the explanation, or
(ii) in the event that the Minister does not provide an explanation, any senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the Minister's failure to provide an explanation, and
(iii) any motion to take note under paragraphs (d) (i) or (ii) have precedence over all other government business until determined. ( general business notice of motion no. 716)
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that this week marks the 15-year anniversary of over 200,000 people marching in each of Melbourne and Sydney, and 600,000 nationwide, to protest Australia's involvement in the Iraq war; and
(b) supports an independent inquiry into:
(i) the decisions that led to Australia invading Iraq, and
(ii) the conduct of the Australian military operations in Iraq. ( general business notice of motion no. 717)
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) electricity prices have gone up 12.4% from December 2016 to December 2017 and are too high,
(ii) the companies that own our electricity networks, including those registered in the Cayman Islands, have made $27.5 billion profit over the past 4 years, which is pushing up prices, and
(iii) the deregulation of electricity prices has seen them skyrocket, so that in Victoria up to 30% of a household's bill is for retailers profits alone, according to the Grattan Institute;
(b) agrees with Victorian Premier Mr Daniel Andrews that electricity should never have been privatised; and
(c) calls on the Government to start bringing the electricity network back into public hands and to take all steps to reregulate electricity prices. ( general business notice of motion no. 718)
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep concern:
(i) that another front has opened up in the war in Syria, following an incursion by Turkey in Syria's Kurdish north-west region in late January,
(ii) reports, from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), that between 15,000 and 30,000 civilians have been internally displaced in Afrin because of Turkey's operation, and
(iii) reports, from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, that Turkish strikes had caused damage to a water plant supplying drinking water to hundreds of thousands in the Afrin region;
(b) notes that the Kurdish people were instrumental in helping to defeat ISIS, and that Kurdish people across the region played a critical role in helping the Yazidi people escape genocide;
(c) condemns Turkey's incursion into Syria and its attacks on Afrin; and
(d) calls on the Australian Government to use all diplomatic means to bring an end to Turkish military incursions. ( general business notice of motion no. 719)
Senators Hanson-Young, Bartlett and McKim to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia is home to 0.3% of the world's population, but 18% of the world's poker machines,
(ii) Australians lose more money to poker machines than anywhere else in the world per capita,
(iii) most countries around the world, 226 out of 238, have no poker machines in pubs and clubs,
(iv) a 2010 study by the Productivity Commission found that problem gamblers account for 40% of losses on poker machines,
(v) suicide rates among problem gamblers are twice the rate of other addictions, and
(vi) problem gamblers are far more vulnerable to depression, relationship breakdown, job loss, lowered work productivity, bankruptcy and crime;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) poker machines have caused a significant degree of social and economic dislocation in the community, and
(ii) the regulation of poker machines is a litmus test of good government; and
(c) calls on the Government to support states in phasing out poker machines in pubs, because the fewer poker machines, the better. ( general business notice of motion no. 720)
Senator Bartlett to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes reports that:
(i) an internal investigation by the Department of the Environment (the Department) found that the Adani mining company 'may have been negligent' in failing to disclose its Australian CEO's links to a company convicted of environmental offences in Africa,
(ii) a compliance report prepared for the Department's investigation found that 'Adani Mining Pty Ltd may have been negligent in that, when requested in August 2015, it failed to disclose a complete account of its executive officers in relation to environmental matters', and
(iii) despite a recommendation that Adani be cautioned about the matter, the company never received any caution from the Federal Government; and
(b) expresses the view that Adani's proposed Carmichael coal mine not go ahead. ( general business notice of motion no. 721)
Senators McKim and Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Tasmania's unique environment is under threat from inappropriate development, and the failure to protect natural and cultural values,
(ii) rapid and unfettered expansion of fish farms is privatising public waters and damaging Tasmania's marine environment and coastal lifestyle,
(iii) private sector development in Tasmania's iconic national parks and world heritage areas is continuing,
(iv) the swift parrot is facing extinction due to ongoing deforestation of its habitat by logging, and
(v) Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage is being damaged by four wheel drive tracks in the Tarkine area; and
(b) condemns the Federal and Tasmanian Liberal governments for failing to stand up for Tasmania's unique natural environment, their lack of support for a Tarkine national park, and complete inaction on climate change. ( general business notice of motion no. 722)
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
That on Wednesday, 14 February 2018—
(a) business of the Senate notices of motion nos 1 and 2, proposing the disallowance of the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1), standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be considered together and have precedence over all government business; and
(b) if consideration of the motions is not concluded at 12.30 pm, the question on the unresolved motions shall then be put.
Postponement
The Clerk: A postponement notification has been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young for today, proposing the disallowance of the Basin Plan Amendment (SDL Adjustments) Instrument 2017, postponed till 14 February 2018.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs References Committee
Environment and Communications References Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Committees have lodged extension notifications in respect of the following:
Community Affairs References Committee—aged care assessment and accreditation—extended from 18 February to 28 November 2018.
Environment and Communications References Committee—
impact of climate change on housing, buildings and infrastructure—extended from 27 March to 27 June 2018.
regulatory framework governing water use—extended from 27 March to 27 June 2018.
The PRESIDENT (15:36): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being no request, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.
MOTIONS
Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 10th Anniversary
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:36): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion no. 707, standing in my name for today, relating to the stolen generations.
Leave granted.
Senator SIEWERT: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that 13 February 2018 marks the 10 year anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and Indigenous people of Australia;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) the ongoing impact and intergenerational trauma of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples caused by the removal of their children from their families, their communities and their country,
(ii) the ongoing healing needs of members of the Stolen Generations, and
(iii) the Government's response to the Bringing them Home Report 20 years on: an action plan for healing report and its funding to the Healing Foundation to research the emerging needs of the members of the Stolen Generations and their families; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to provide needs-based funding and a financial redress scheme to members of the Stolen Generations, and carry out a national study into intergenerational trauma to ensure that there is real change for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the future.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:37): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government recognises the grief and loss suffered by the stolen generations. Since the apology, governments have invested in practical actions that support the stolen generations and their families. The government is already funding the Healing Foundation to complete an assessment of the contemporary and emerging needs of stolen generation members and their families. The government will not support any measure that pre-empts or undermines the Healing Foundation's work.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Rotation of Senators
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:37): On behalf of Senator Birmingham, I move:
That—
(a) as soon as practicable, after the High Court orders a special count of the ballots from the 2016 Senate election for any state and makes an order declaring that a person identified by that count is duly elected as a senator for that state, there be laid on the table a copy of the statement of results report for that count; and
(b) if such a report is tabled, in relation to any state, then the order of the Senate of 31 August 2016, made pursuant to section 13 of the Constitution, have effect in relation to senators from that state as if a reference to the certificate of election were a reference to the most recent statement of results report.
Senator MARTIN (Tasmania) (15:38): I seek leave to make a short statement of not more than two minutes.
Leave granted.
Senator MARTIN: This is not to be taken as my first speech. I oppose this motion on three grounds. First, section 13 of the Constitution provides that the Senate terms are to be allocated by the Senate on the first available sitting opportunity after dissolution. This was done on 31 August 2016. There was a reason that the framers included that provision. It was to prevent parties in the Senate from being able to change terms mid-course as a reward for cooperative senators or to punish those who are difficult. And yet here we are in the Senate, locking in a process of rolling reallocation in response to highly unusual circumstances. This may be in keeping with the letter of the Constitution; it is not, I believe, in keeping with the spirit of it.
Second, where was the consultation? This motion seems to be cooked up between the major parties with very little notice or without any prior discussion. Again, this is disappointing and not in the spirit of how these things should be done.
Finally, let's look at who stands to lose out from this motion, those of us who are being bumped to a three-year term: Senators Molan and Colbeck, two senators placed down on their tickets by their party; Senator Steele-John, the youngest senator in this chamber; and, of course, me, as an Independent here to fight purely on behalf of Tasmania. I leave it to the Senate to reflect on how this looks. Suffice to say this is precisely the kind of mischief I believe the framers of our Constitution were trying to avoid.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HINCH: I think this is a deal cooked up by the major parties to try to make legal a dirty mess that they created last year. On 10 August last year the AEC had the result of the Victorian section 282 recount: (1) Fifield, (2) Carr, (3) Di Natale, (4) McKenzie, (5) Conroy, (6) Hinch. That was under what was called the Bob Hawke line of fairness approach. When that came up, that wasn't good enough. With no disrespect, Mr President, you were the person who got No. 6 with the deal done with the Labor Party down in Victoria. In New South Wales it was Senator Rhiannon who got the shaft, and Senator O'Neill, for the Labor Party, got there. It's a stitch-up by the major parties.
I totally support Senator Martin. It could happen to any crossbencher at any time. I tried to protest against this last year, but we didn't have the numbers—we still don't have the numbers. I think it's a rotten deal and it's unfair. I got six years. Take me out of it, because the next person— (Time expired)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:41): I seek leave to make a short statement
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Just to respond to the comments from senators: Senator Martin is indeed correct; the Constitution does provide that these matters shall be determined shortly after the Senate has the opportunity to sit. That, of course, is what the Senate chose to do. The motion before the Senate today seeks to provide confirmation of the decision that the Senate undertook, which is that the process for determining three-year and six-year terms, as has been tradition and the case with previous double dissolutions, shall be in accordance with the order of election as declared by the Australian Electoral Commission.
There is no change to the process and no change to the formula. The certificates that will be provided by the AEC under this process may result in some changes because certain candidates for election have been disqualified since then by the High Court in various findings; however, the process being used is identical to that which the Senate previously agreed. This motion just provides confirmation of that process.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MOTIONS
Donations to Political Parties
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:49): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in McCloy v New South Wales (2015), the High Court found that prohibiting political donations from a certain industry was permissible if the prohibition was proportionate to the risk of actual or perceived corruption,
(ii) a 2016 report from 350.org, found that fossil fuel companies would receive $7.7 billion in rebates and credits for the 2016-17 financial year, had made $3.7 million in political donations since the preceding election, and that this equated to $2,000 in rebates and credits for every $1 donated, and
(iii) in 2016-17, the Liberal, National and Labor parties received at least $477,111 from Woodside Energy, Santos, the Minerals Council of Australia, Whitehaven Coal and Adani Mining; and
(b) calls on the Government to prohibit political donations from mineral resources or mining industry business entities and their industry representative organisations.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Environment and Communications References Committee
Reference
The PRESIDENT: We move to business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Steele-John.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:56): Wouldn't it be remarkable if it was standing, Mr President? Sorry; I apologise. I move:
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) on 14 December 2017, the United States (US) Federal Communications Commission voted to remove network neutrality protections;
(b) Australia has no dedicated protections and existing legislation is insufficient to ensure that networks do not discriminate against or prioritise specific services, applications or content delivered over the internet;
(c) in March 2012, the Convergence Review Final Report noted that the "ACCC's existing powers to address competition issues as they relate to content services in the communications market focus on anti-competitive conduct and economic market analysis", which are "too narrow to address evolving content-specific issues, such as exclusive rights arrangements and bundling, and network neutrality issues that inhibit competition"; and
(d) there are existing instances of anti-competitive arrangements between internet service providers and content providers in Australia, including zero rating and unmetered traffic from selected providers, excluding competitors.
(2) That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2018:
Australia's need for public interest network neutrality protections and the implications for Australia arising from a US repeal of network neutrality protections, including:
(a) any instances of current and past violations of network neutrality in Australia and any related anti-competitive conduct;
(b) the effectiveness and reach of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in regulating network neutrality in Australia, any obstacles preventing the ACCC from effectively regulating the telecommunications sector, and considerations beyond consumer and competition law;
(c) any considerations or implications for Australia arising from changes to network neutrality laws in the US, including whether Australia needs to renegotiate its free trade agreement with the US as a consequence;
(d) international best practice for network neutrality regulation and protections;
(e) potential regulations and protections that should be considered in order to maintain Australia's open internet and prevent anti-competitive behaviour from internet service and content providers; and
(f) any related matters.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The Australian government strongly supports the open and unrestricted use of internet for lawful purposes, which is a key principle of net neutrality. In Australia, we already have strong rules to address anticompetitive conduct and a watchdog to enforce these rules in the ACCC. We have a competitive internet service provider market in Australia. Consumers have the ability to easily change providers. This delivers strong disincentives to inhibit providers from engaging in this type of conduct.
The Australian government canvassed net neutrality in its 2006 broadband blueprint, which found that existing competition and consumer laws were well-placed to deal with any concerns. This remains the government's position. Net neutrality also received some commentary in the ACCC's recent draft communications market study, where the regulator endorsed the hands-off approach taken to date. As such, the government considers that this inquiry is unnecessary.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MOTIONS
Sport
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:02): I move:
That the Senate notes that:
(a) the provision of local community sporting facilities is integral to ensuring grassroots participation in sport;
(b) the upcoming National Sports Plan, due for release in May this year, must allocate significant funds to supporting local sporting infrastructure;
(c) many suburban areas, such as within the City of Darebin, Victoria, are struggling to provide high quality sport and recreation facilities, due to high levels of projected growth;
(d) in the case of the City of Darebin, this growth has been projected at 25 per cent over the next 20 years;
(e) the Victorian State Labor Government is yet to deliver on their promise of 64 competition-compliant netball courts within the City of Darebin; and
(f) the Federal Government has a responsibility to fund multi-sport stadiums, such as the Darebin Multi Sports Stadium at John Cain Memorial Park in the suburb of Thornbury, Victoria.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government does not support this motion, as the capital funding of multisport stadiums is not the primary responsibility of the Australian government. The Australian government already makes a significant contribution to sport, with over $357 million invested to support sport and recreation in 2016-17. The Australian government supports grassroots participation in sport, including through the Girls Make Your Move campaign, which specifically encourages young women to be more active through sport and physical activity.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Labor has a strong record of support for local grassroots sporting facilities because we understand the true value of sport in our communities. The former Labor government invested nearly $200 million in sport facilities across Australia, the vast majority for local community sport. Labor believes that all Australians should have the opportunity to participate in sport and physical activity and to enjoy the health and wellbeing benefits it provides.
The Victorian state Labor government is delivering more netball courts in Darebin, giving the community the space they need to grow their clubs and welcome new members. Five new courts have been built and recently opened at JC Donath Reserve and JE Moore Park. Twenty-three more are on track to be built in Darebin, including two at Northcote High School, three at Darebin Community Sports Stadium, one at Fairfield Primary School, six at Thornbury High School and two at Reservoir High School. The Andrews Labor government has also announced funding to start design work for four new outdoor courts at John Cain Memorial Park.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:04): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: The provision of local community sporting facilities is absolutely integral for our communities. It provides space for people to gather, for families to connect and for children to become active and participate in sport. Yet we often see governments make promises to communities which they do not intend to keep. The City of Darebin is struggling to meet the demand of its population growth and to provide adequate sporting facilities for its residents. Despite the Victorian state Labor government promising additional facilities in the lead-up to the 2014 election, four years later the community still is holding its breath for the 64 competition-compliant netball courts they had been promised in Northcote, in Reservoir, in places that we know desperately need them. I urge the Victorian state government to deliver on their commitment to the people of Darebin in the electorate of Batman rather than to continue the broken promises they have become known for.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 703, standing in the name of Senator Di Natale, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:09]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Dental Health
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:12): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the success of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule (CDBS) which has provided Medicare-funded dental care to children aged between 2 and 17, since the Greens negotiated it when in balance of power government with the Gillard Labor Government;
(b) recognises that cost is a major barrier to access to dental care across the community, and that the lower a person's income, the more likely they are to have chronic oral health problems;
(c) notes that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, those living in rural and regional Australia, and low income earners have more than twice the rate of untreated dental decay as high income earners;
(d) acknowledges that untreated dental disease can have very serious health consequences, such as leading to low birth weight and premature babies, increased risk of heart disease and potentially life-threatening infections – poor dental health can also lead to social isolation, poor diet and depression; and
(e) calls on the Government to expand Denticare access to other vulnerable groups, including aged pension recipients and full benefit income support recipients, and holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and all other concession cards.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:12): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government does not support this motion, as the states and territories have primary responsibility for the funding and provision of public dental services, including determining what services they provide. The coalition government is supporting the states and territories to do this, contributing $242 million from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2019 for the delivery of additional public dental services to adults through a national partnership agreement. All states, with the exception of Queensland, have signed on to the agreement.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:12): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: When it comes to funding for dental care, the Commonwealth does play a significant role through the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, and that's Medicare funded. It is an agreement that was struck with the Labor Party back in 2010 as a result of the power-sharing agreement we had with Labor. I know it very well because I was involved in the formulation of that policy. It is Medicare funded policy. It is a thousand dollars—
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Senator DI NATALE: Well, you might say that—I'll take Senator Sterle's intervention. You don't want children to have a thousand dollars worth of Medicare funded dental care, Senator Sterle? You tell that to the people of Batman. You tell the people of Batman you don't want them to have a thousand dollars worth of Medicare funded dental care. Shame on you!
Senator Sterle interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Di Natale! Senator Sterle!
Senator DI NATALE: Don't walk away from it, Senator Sterle. The people of Batman want Medicare funded dental care. It should be expanded to people on low incomes and pensioners, and it should be a universal entitlement. Let's see if you move, Senator Sterle. Let's see which side of the chamber you go to.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Di Natale! I remind those seeking leave to make statements that the provision to make statements, particularly by party representatives, is actually the prerogative of every individual senator. The question is that motion No. 704, moved by Senator Di Natale, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Religious Freedom Review
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:17): I, and on behalf of Senator Rice, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 14 December 2017, Prime Minister Turnbull announced the terms of reference for the Religious Freedom Review, chaired by the Honourable Philip Ruddock,
(ii) despite the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet originally confirming that submissions to the inquiry would not be published, it later stated that decisions on releasing submissions would depend on whether or not submitters have given consent,
(iii) hearings which were not disclosed publicly have commenced with evidence taken in private, and
(iv) members of the LGBTIQ community in Australia have publicly raised concerns about the lack of transparency of these private hearings; and
(b) agrees that public confidence in the Religious Freedom Review is being compromised by secrecy and lack of transparency, and calls on Prime Minister Turnbull and Mr Ruddock to conduct a transparent review, and publicise dates and locations of hearings and open them to the public.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:18): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The Religious Freedom Review is conducting independent and widespread consultations and is considering more than 4,000 submissions from the public. Mr Ruddock and his fellow panellists are conducting themselves in an entirely appropriate and transparent fashion.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 705 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:19]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
DOCUMENTS
Murray-Darling Basin
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:21): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 708, standing in my name for today. It's been circulated and I believe it's been agreed to by the government and the opposition.
Leave granted.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I move the motion as amended:
Amendment to General Business Notice of Motion No. 708
As listed on pages 11-12 of today's Notice Paper in the name of Senator Hanson-Young
To move—
That—
(1) The Senate notes that:
(a) reports of allegations of water theft, corruption and bureaucratic misadministration have been a blow to community confidence that the Basin Plan is on track;
(b) in his first speech in 2016, the current Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources argued that "The balance [of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan] has been weighted disproportionately, without an understanding of the social and economic impacts on our communities";
(c) the former Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in a leaked recording, said to a group of NSW irrigators, regarding the merging of the portfolios of agriculture and water resources, "We've taken water and put it back into agriculture so we can look after you and make sure we don't have the greenies running the show basically sending you out the back door";
(d) downstream communities, such as those in South Australia, rely on upstream users to do the right thing and for the rules to be applied without favour to any one group; and
(e) the wisdom of this reliance is jeopardised when allegations of theft and corruption are not adequately addressed.
(2) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for
Agriculture and Water Resources, by 6:30 pm on 13 February 2018:
(a) any correspondence received by the Chief Executive of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, or representatives thereof, from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, or representatives thereof, between 1 November 2017 and 12 February 2018;
(b) any internal and external correspondence, reports (including drafts), presentations (including drafts) regarding the Northern Basin Review between 17 November 2016 and 24 November 2016, between:
(i) members of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority board,
(ii) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority,
(iii) the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources,
(iv) the office of the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources,
(v) the office of the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources,
(vi) the office of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:22): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government has communicated with the senator regarding the time frame and complexity of this motion. If passed, the government will consider the request as appropriate, noting some of the documents may not be available within the short time frame. The government is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time, and seeks the Senate's support to deliver all elements of the plan.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Gambling
The PRESIDENT (16:23): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today eight proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
'The need for the federal government to take a stronger and more active direct role in the regulation of harmful and predatory gambling.'
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (16:24): The matter before the Senate at the moment is indeed a matter of great public importance. The damage done to communities, individuals and families around the country by the massive continued expansion of harmful and predatory gambling is something that I'm sure we are all aware of, and we also must be aware of the fact that it is not being adequately addressed as things stand. One of the things that I think many in the community find most frustrating and irritating when they are raising a persistent problem that is not being addressed by elected representatives is when people try to pass the buck between state and federal level and say that it's a state issue, or a federal issue, or a local issue, and there's nothing we can do about it. The simple fact is there is something that needs to be done about this, and it can be done at federal level with more federal leadership.
The Greens have long campaigned for winding back the extraordinary expansion of poker machines in Australia. Australia is home to 0.3 per cent of the world's population but 18 per cent of the world's poker machines. Australians lose more money per capita to poker machines than do people anywhere else in the world. This isn't some manifestation of a quirk of the Australian character where we somehow or other love a punt more than anyone else in the world or have a compulsion to put coins into a machine; this is the result of an explicit policy choice by governments of both major party political persuasions, at federal as well as state level, for many years. This is an almost inevitable outcome of the regulatory regimes at state and federal level and a lack of political will to tackle this problem.
It is no coincidence that the gambling lobby in general—the pokies, the casinos and the like—put in literally millions of dollars of political donations at state and federal level. We need not just greater transparency about those donations but to eliminate those donations. The Greens have long campaigned to eradicate political donations from the gambling sector, as we did long ago in the tobacco industry—well, not so long ago in regard to the coalition in particular, who seemed keen to keep taking money from that sector for quite a long time. It is clear that this is a harmful industry and needs to be better regulated at federal level, with incentives, assistance and support for states to wean themselves off the revenue stream that they themselves have become addicted to.
A 2010 study by the Productivity Commission, hardly a bleeding heart social welfare body, found that problem gamblers account for 40 per cent of losses to poker machines. Most countries around the world—226 out of 238—do not have poker machines in pubs and clubs. Suicide rates among problem gamblers are twice the rates among those with other addictions. Problem gamblers are far more vulnerable to depression, relationship breakdown and job loss. Parts of our criminal justice system are being affected by this as well. This is a failure of the political system, because there's a lack of political will to tackle a major problem. It's not just about pokies. The expansion of online gambling is another serious concern with regard to the lack of protections for people. It's not a wowserish anti-gambling approach; it's about recognising that some forms of gambling are predatory, deliberately and knowingly causing harm to people and families. We need to stop that.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (16:28): If ever there were a demonstration of the fact that the Greens live in a parallel universe, this motion is it. As Senator Seselja said just a moment ago: while criticising the government and the opposition for taking donations from the gambling sector, the good senator admitted to the fact that the Greens take donations from a professional gambler, noting that one of the things that particular gentleman, David Walsh from MONA, wants to do is set up a new casino in Tasmania. So not only do they live in a parallel universe but they also don't come here with clean hands.
Then, when you consider the context of the matter of public importance itself, it seems as though they've been living under a rock for the last 12 months. It's no secret that I haven't been in this chamber for the last 18 months, but I have seen firsthand during that period of time the efforts that the government has been going to, working at a national level, sometimes with the cooperation of the states and territories and sometimes not, with the gambling industry and with those who don't support the gambling industry—like the community services sector, who have concerns about those who can't manage their own gambling—to make some changes.
Minister Fifield, for example, has successfully negotiated and legislated through this place changes to broadcasting laws that will see a welcome change in gambling advertising on television—a clear demonstration of the activity of government over the last 12 months in relation to the management, at a national level, of gambling. It demonstrates that this motion by the Greens doesn't really reflect the reality of what's occurring, the work happening now that was instigated by the former minister, Minister Tudge, who I know actively sought to put in place a national consumer protection framework for those who were engaging in gambling—in particular in online gambling but also in gambling across the board—so that there were some protections in place.
That is national leadership taken by this government. It was taken by the former minister, Minister Tudge, because he was passionately involved with a case where one of his constituents had been hurt and because he wanted to make a difference during his time in the portfolio. I saw firsthand that passion and desire. I worked with him to achieve the principles of a national consumer protection framework, which had things like a national self-exclusion register, which worked across the online platforms, and the removal of credit betting. These are measures that are making a difference.
The Greens motion today doesn't even stand up in the context of being in the real world, because this government is actively taking measures to protect people who need that protection, because they can't manage it themselves. It's been good to see both the gambling sector and the community services sector working closely to make sure that the intentions of the government's reforms are actually met, because there are those, and they're not necessarily those you might expect, that are opposed to some of the changes.
We're looking at things such as voluntary precommitments: the opportunity for a consumer, at an early stage in their involvement with a gambling entity, to set their own targets. That is the best way for these things to work. We are not going to change the world overnight—and not by putting in some artificial measures that the Greens might like to think would work—but we are actively working in this space to provide the measures that will make a genuine difference, and some of those I've already mentioned. Precommitment—when someone signs up for a gambling account—is an important part of that process. They know what they can afford to spend. They know what their patterns are. The opportunity for them to be advised of how much they're spending, through reports back to them that are easily accessible, is also an important part of the process.
It's quite confounding to me that just last night the Greens voted against the cashless credit card, a process and a mechanism that might not be a silver bullet but is something that has already been proven to significantly reduce spending on gambling in communities that are at risk. So we see not only the blindness to what is actually happening but the hypocrisy of the Greens when they vote against something that government has put forward for communities that has already clearly been demonstrated to provide a significant reduction in gambling. In fact, 48 per cent of gamblers in the communities where the card has already been trialled are gambling less, and yet the Greens vote against that and then come in here to criticise the government for not doing enough while they themselves are inhibiting government attempts to improve outcomes for those who are susceptible to gambling. You really cannot understand where the logic comes from. I know logic and the Greens in the same sentence really don't mix, but it is helpful that they continue to demonstrate that through their actions.
This government, through Minister Fifield, is providing a reduction in gambling advertising on television, and I don't know too many people who don't welcome that. In fact, in the Great Hall on budget night last year the fact that we won't be pestered by gambling advertising before 8.30 of an evening was probably the only announcement that received spontaneous applause from those present. It is a real measure that will improve the lot. It is outlawing credit betting and has measures to block international betting sites. If you look at the current debate in Tasmania, where the Labor Party is proposing to ban pokies, you see the naivety of that policy. The Labor Party is looking to take pokies out of pubs and clubs, and the naivety of that will just see people move to online gambling on overseas gambling sites with no taxation to the Australian government, no protections in respect of their spending and a real likelihood that their financial details will fall into the wrong hands and they will end up in further pain.
So the policy that's currently being proposed in Tasmania by the Labor Party is completely naive and supported, I might say, by the Greens in their own parallel universe. And yet they come in here and criticise the government that over the last 18 months has taken real, practical actions that will work, that are supported broadly by the community and that, might I add, have had support from the gambling sector. So the complete hypocrisy of the Greens is again demonstrated along with that life in a parallel universe where they don't understand what's actually going on and yet they themselves voted against a measure in this place last night that will improve the lot of those susceptible to gambling. (Time expired)
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (16:38): I am pleased to be able to participate in this afternoon's MPI, moved by Senator Siewert, about the need for the federal government to take a stronger, more active and direct role in the regulation of harmful and predatory gambling. I want to take the opportunity to put on the record just how powerful the sharing of life experiences from older adult Australians with younger children can be as an interrupter to the sorts of behaviours that we are seeking to discuss here today. People fall into gambling addiction because there are harmful and predatory practices in this industry.
I recall living as a young girl on Targo Road in Western Sydney, not very far from the Pendle Hill Catholic Club, where there was a wonderful woman I was very proud to know—one of those adoptive aunts. Her name was Gwen Carroll. She was a great nurse. She came from Toowoomba. She moved to Sydney and worked at Crown Street. She delivered thousands of babies, had a great social conscience, married a lovely Irishman and became a part of our family.
Aunty Gwen worked at the Pendle Hill Catholic club, and one evening we went to pick her up and bring her home. She had plates of food she was carrying out, and instead of getting into the car she gave the plates of food to a man who put them into his car. It was leftover food from the club. When she got into the car for us to give her a lift home, I asked her what was going on. I was a very impressionable eight-year-old at the time. She said, 'Well, that man hasn't got enough money left to feed his family,' because he'd gambled it away on poker machines in that club. To this day I applaud her social conscience and her practical action to deal with the issue for that family, but it's a few years since I was eight, and here we are discussing this matter still. Gambling is a significant social problem for far too many Australians.
Now, as a mother of 20-somethings, I know that the culture amongst many young Australians at this time is one in which rabid social advertising is drawing them more and more into the world of gambling, to the point where addiction to gambling is absolutely increasing. Just this week, there was an amazing article, in my view, which was related to the royal commission. You might say, 'Well, what's that got to do with harmful and predatory gambling?' But I will take the part of the MPI about 'a stronger and more active direct role in the regulation'. We need to think about where people are getting money and free access to money. The story that I want to cite was written by consumer affairs reporter Sarah Farnsworth and the ABC Specialist Reporting Team's Naomi Selvaratnam. It was uploaded two days ago, and it's in the public domain. The caption under the photo of a young man is:
By the time he was 20, Mitchell Spiteri was placing daily bets on gambling websites.
The article goes on to note:
As of February 17, laws banning gambling companies from giving credit to people will come into effect
But it also indicates that this young man, despite his full profile of spending being available to his bank, was still approved for a $25,000 loan when he was at the peak of his addiction.
So we have a long, long way to go in creating a context for a punt—and let's face it: Australians really make the best of that, particularly on Melbourne Cup Day, and the whole of the racing industry, to a degree, really relies on the entertainment value of horseracing and the dogs et cetera, and there are many other forms of betting that people do manage in moderation. But the context in which we live right now is one that Labor acknowledges is very concerning from the point of view that the growth in gambling advertising and online betting, including sports betting, is just rampant.
We recognise, as a party, that well-regulated gambling absolutely has a place in Australian society. I've only got five minutes, so I won't tell you about the wonderful times I had going to Royal Randwick with my family, including my father, seeing and enjoying the races. People there were having a great day. But we are concerned because times have changed and the growth of digital technology, including smartphones, allows Australians to wager and gamble whenever and wherever they choose, so social protections that once might have existed no longer exist. We're in a digital age. We can't change that. It's an age of rapid change with regard to technology. Pretty well all of us have at least one handheld device; many of us have multiple devices. Smartphones allow us to do remarkable things, including going to the MoneySmart website, and I'm sure the MoneySmart website from ASIC would have some good guidance for young people who want to think about managing their money. It's not the technology that is flawed but what we're allowing to happen with it and within it. It's important that we acknowledge that the new technological realities have increased the likelihood of problem gambling. We simply cannot deny that that's the reality.
Labor also believes that the advertising of legitimate sports bets can and should be well regulated, with appropriate harm-minimisation measures in place to protect children against problem gambling. This is because, as I started to recount in my opening remarks, we know that gambling in our community can in some cases have devastating consequences not just for the individual but for their family—social consequences, financial consequences and emotional consequences that don't remain with the individual whose choice it is but are transferred by their connection to others, to entire families, and can race through entire communities in small regional areas.
Research undertaken by Deakin University gives us this vital information in very digestible form and points out that there are a number of very concerning issues with regard to children in particular and gambling advertising on television. Deakin found that over 90 per cent of children can recall having seen an advertisement for sports betting. That's pretty much market saturation of a youth market. Three-quarters of children aged eight to 16 years can recall the name of at least one sports betting brand and approximately one-quarter can recall four brands or more. So when 75 per cent of children think gambling is normal, to the point that it's part of something that they can just name off the top of their head, it shows you the level of exposure that our entire community is being subjected to. Parents who participated in that survey and study from Deakin University also conveyed their concerns, including that gambling advertising is so prevalent that it's changing the way kids think about sport and talk about sport.
All the language that we use arrives into our world in a context—and this is not a context that exists in every country around the world but it is certainly the reality that we confront right now. That's why Labor has continued to maintain a very strong stance to ensure that appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place and that we protect and assist our community. It was Labor, when in government, that commissioned the Productivity Commission report to update its previous report on the gambling industry in Australia. And it was Labor that rejected recommendations to water down Australia's online gaming laws until harm minimisation strategies were adopted. It is a while since we were in government—sadly. We've been watching the demise of so many important parts of the fabric of our society. When we were in government we understood this was an issue, and we led the introduction of new rules to limit the promotion of betting odds and gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts on both television and radio because we know that what kids hear and see has an impact on them. We are listening to the concerns people in our community have around gambling.
I go back to that memory of a single conversation as an eight-year-old in a car park at Pendle Hill. The context that you grow up in, the kinds of words and stories that people tell you and the way you understand how the world works will have an impact on your behaviour. I have to say that I became very cautious about what gambling might do. It doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed the odd bet from time to time but, I'm very glad to say, gambling addiction has never come close. But this is a reality that needs to be considered and the government needs to take some responsibility for the context in which gambling addiction is on the rise.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:48): Predatory gambling has always been a key issue for former Senator Nick Xenophon and the Nick Xenophon Team, and we are proud to have made a number of positive inroads that help protect consumers. We most recently secured gambling ad bans during televised sports matches and bans on credit betting. But that is just the start. Problem gambling is a huge blight on our society and we will never stop pushing for reforms to tackle predatory gambling and the deep harm it causes.
Pokies are, of course, the biggest culprit when it comes to problem gambling. It is an industry that preys on the vulnerable and is a major driver of household debt and family and personal dysfunction. We need to progressively reduce their numbers and we need to urgently remove their addictive features. This is why we have backed the Productivity Commission's recommendations for a $1 maximum bet per spin to try and cap losses at $120 an hour. This is an urgent issue because poker machine players in South Australia alone can currently lose up to $5 per spin every 2.8 seconds or so and can easily lose $1,000 an hour. We also need to get ATMs and EFTPOS machines out of pokie venues.
But this is not the end game. We need to wean state governments off their $5-billion-a-year gambling taxes, and this is where the Commonwealth can very much play a part. We have been pleased to work constructively with this government to achieve some significant reforms, such as a siren-to-siren ban on betting advertising during televised sports matches. We also secured a ban on credit betting, which takes effect from this Saturday.
However, defeating this manipulative industry can feel like a game of Whac-A-Mole. As an example, I'd like to draw senators' attention to a particularly deceptive gambling product known as Lottoland. Despite its misleading name, Lottoland is not a lottery. It's a glorified bookmaker that bets on lottery outcomes. Lottoland is registered in Gibraltar and pays no income tax on the money it earns overseas. It also avoids paying any local taxes—such as, for instance, Tatts pays.
The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 made it illegal for overseas gambling companies to offer gambling products to Australians unless they hold a licence issued by a state or territory. Lottoland has secured its licence through the Northern Territory, allowing it to reach most Australians. Thankfully, it has been banned in my home state of South Australia.
What is galling is seeing this gambling product advertised on morning television, when mums and dads are getting their kids ready for school. Many of us would have a talk show blaring in the background in the mornings, particularly to distract one from the noise of young children. But those who tune in to Sunrise will be hit with promotions for Lottoland and a new product, Kenoland, before the weather is even presented. It's gambling in another guise, and we think it deserves to be looked at more closely.
We've banned sporting ads during G-rated programs. We obviously need to take this one step further and ban all gambling advertising while children are watching. When it comes to predatory gambling, NXT will never tire in its efforts to fight against the damage this industry causes to so many people and their families.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (16:52): Consistency and integrity have never been a strong suit of the Greens. When you have a look at this matter of public importance, you can see where the Australian Greens are coming from—
Senator McKim interjecting—
Senator ABETZ: And right on cue, the Australian Greens cannot help but interject. Senator Bartlett introduced the MPI and, I understand, made some comments about the donations received by political parties as though that might somehow influence the particular stance or view on matters. I do not ask rhetorically—and I stress this—whether the Leader of the Australian Greens has actually approached major gambling organisations for donations. Not a squeak out of the Australian Greens! So it seems that it's appropriate for the Australian Greens to seek donations from major gambling organisations but then condemn those who may receive support from various sectors.
Indeed, in my home state of Tasmania at the moment there is a state election, and the Australian Labor Party have adopted Australian Greens policy, as is always their wont. If you want to know what Labor policy is going to be in about five years time, have a look at what the Australian Greens policy is today. What we have seen in Tasmania is Labor and the Greens seeking to ban poker machines from pubs and clubs. This policy has been widely lauded by the Tasmanian racing industry. I wonder why? It is because they see an opportunity. If you cut out one part of the market, people will transfer to another part of the market.
I agree that gambling is a problem within our community. So is alcoholism. But it would be a bit like saying, 'Alcoholism is a problem in our community so we will ban beer, but not wine or spirits or alcopops; we will just ban one particular product,' and then saying: 'Aren't we good? This somehow cures the problem.' Of course it doesn't.
Who are the greatest champions of the Green-Labor policy in Tasmania? None other than the racing industry and a person who is, in fact, seeking to establish another casino in Tasmania and who has made substantial wealth through gambling. The person involved has made all his money courtesy of other people losing theirs. And, of course, how does the racing industry continue? By people losing money on their gambling. So it is hardly with clean hands that the Greens approach this issue and assert that somehow, if you get rid of one sector of the gambling product, you will overcome the problems.
The Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering, in 2016, estimated that some $400 million worth of betting was undertaken in 2014. This is expected to grow to $910 million by 2020. The review found that the rate of problem gambling for online gamblers is three times higher than the rate of problem gambling elsewhere. So, let's keep in mind where some of the real problems are. You can, today, lose your home through gambling without even leaving your home, because the online gambling facilities are there.
We as a federal government have been seeking to deal with these matters in a manner that is consistent and has some degree of policy integrity about it. The amazing thing is that in this debate you hear about the vulnerable people—and there are vulnerable people, I accept that—but when you seek to protect vulnerable people from their own actions, such as through the cashless welfare card, the Australian Labor Party and the Greens vote against it.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator ABETZ: The Greens, of course, express their faux exasperation, but can I simply remind the Australian Greens that where the cashless welfare card has been introduced there has been a 48 per cent reduction in gambling. If you honestly believe that gambling is a problem, why would you not say: well, here is one way of protecting vulnerable people from themselves? At the end of the day, whilst government has a role in this area, the individual does as well. Individual responsibility is a matter of concern where, within the community, I think we have to invite people to start taking more responsibility for their own actions rather than saying: here's a problem; the government's got to do something about it.
What we're saying in relation to the issue of gambling is that it is widespread within the community and, in the Tasmanian context, just seeking to get rid of one form of gambling will not overcome the sorts of problems that people have had in losing money, be it on the horses, on the dogs, on the card tables or, indeed, in personal gambling, where people play cards and lose their week's wages or their fortnight's wages. As a former lawyer, I've dealt with people that, unfortunately, lost a lot of money and got themselves into problems in circumstances where they were never near a poker machine, so this attempt to pick on poker machines is hardly going to resolve the issues that we, as a country, face today.
I commend to my colleagues the speech by Senator Colbeck, who gave some very interesting insights in this discussion before I did. Whilst the Productivity Commission was referred to, I think, by Senator Griff in relation to $1 bets, the Productivity Commission also noted that pre-commitment is 'the most'—I want to underline the word 'most'—'targeted and potentially effective measure'. But, as soon as you start talking about things like pre-commitment, people taking responsibility and realising that they have to do something about it, you cannot see Labor and the Greens for dust, because they always want to have government banning something, government stopping something, government controlling something, rather than saying, 'How can we deal with this situation?' I remember the former member for Hume, Alby Schultz—rest his soul—taking me to a club in New South Wales where there were technologies in place to protect their membership. I believe that that is a way that local clubs and individual clubs can, in fact, take responsibility in these areas.
As part of the broader media reform, we as a government have announced restrictions on the level of gambling advertising and seeking to control those areas that are appropriate. The sort of sledgehammer approach on just one area of gambling by the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania is a policy that clearly will not work.
Senator McKim: Singing for your supper again! How much did they pay you for this speech?
Senator ABETZ: And, what's more, it is designed to ensure that the people in Tasmania who might be concerned—and there are many genuine people who are concerned about poker machines—will support them. I simply remind them: if there were a minority Labor-Green government elected on 3 March, the human misery of unemployment would be there for all to see. The dysfunction would enter our prisons, hospitals and schools yet again. And what's more, we would be lumbered with a Safe Schools program. So I simply say to people: do not be distracted by the Labor-Greens campaign in this area. (Time expired)
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:02): I am very pleased to participate in this MPI on the issue of whether or not there is a need for the federal government to take a stronger, more active and direct role in the regulation of harmful and predatory gambling. I just want to talk from a personal perspective in commencing my remarks in this debate to indicate that, whilst I understand the theoretical argument in Senator Abetz's contribution that individuals should take responsibility for their own behaviour, the issue of children now being involved in online gambling is, I think, a matter that we all, as parents, need to be concerned about.
Labor's position is that we understand that there are community concerns about the growth of gambling advertising and online betting, including sports betting. I know that one of the problems that we see is that young people, particularly teenagers, are looking at the growth of gambling advertising, particularly around sporting events, and this then becomes an entree into the world of gambling. I must say, from my own personal concerns, I have seen friends of my own children being involved in online gambling. There have been some concerns expressed to me by my children about the impact that this is having on their friends to the extent where you see young people, with their access to smartphones, having the opportunity around the clock to participate in gambling activities.
I'm not aware of the specific gambling sites that young people are accessing, but I do know the impact that gambling is having on some young people. It impacts on their studies. It impacts on the activities they do in the real world and their opportunity to participate in sporting activities. It can get to the stage where young people spend a great deal of their time online and involved in this type of addictive behaviour. This is a concern to me personally as a parent. I think it behoves all of us to look at that aspect of this issue.
I want to talk a little bit more a little later on about Labor's position, particularly with respect to the interactive gambling bill that was considered by this parliament a couple of years ago. As I said, we believe that advertising of legitimate sports betting can and should be well-regulated so that we don't see the levels of addiction to gambling arising that I talked about. As I said, we believe that a well-regulated gambling industry must be underpinned by harm minimisation measures. My personal view is that children should be protected from this addiction.
We know that gambling in our community can have, and in some cases has had, devastating social, financial and emotional consequences. That's why we on this side of the chamber maintain a strong stance to ensure that appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place that protect and assist our community. In fact, when we were last in office we commissioned the Productivity Commission to update its previous reports on the gambling industry in Australia. We rejected recommendations to water down Australia's online-gaming laws until harm minimisation strategies were adopted. In fact, it was Labor that led the way with gambling advertising reform in 2013, when we were in government, by limiting the promotion of betting odds and limiting gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts on television and radio.
I acknowledge the work that Mr Stephen Jones, the member for Throsby, did to drive those reforms at that time. The bill that was introduced then was designed to limit those gambling ads. Mr Jones was a member of the parliament's Joint Select Gambling Reform Committee and had the intention of rallying support amongst his Labor colleagues to back his private member's bill at the time. It's interesting to note though that, from the other side of the chamber, Mr Frydenberg, the Victorian Liberal, who sat on the gambling reform committee, told the AFL witness at a hearing in March:
… I just think you have not got the balance right. Personally I think there is too much advertising and promotion. I think it is invidious to the sport and I think it is affecting younger people who are exposed to it.
Those are interesting comments. Hopefully, at some point in time there will be bipartisan support for looking more closely at this issue of children being protected from the impacts of online gambling.
We know that there are these harmful and predatory aspects of the gambling industry, but we also need to understand that there is responsible gambling—when people do it in a manner where there is no harm involved—and that there are benefits to communities across the country from revenue raised through gambling, from the horseracing industry to pokies or pub poker nights. I want to stress, though, that that needs to happen in a responsible way. I acknowledge that there is always the potential for individuals to be caught up in gambling and for there to be devastating consequences. I'm not seeking to make light of that. I understand that, and that is something that we all need to be cognisant of. But responsible gambling can also have some benefits for the community. In my home state of Queensland, the Gambling Community Benefit Fund provides grants to community organisations of between $500 and $35,000, and there are examples across communities of various grants being given to very worthwhile organisations—the Animal Welfare League Queensland, for example. Parents and citizens associations and men's sheds are organisations that are beneficiaries of this particular initiative.
But I want to stress, again, that I'm not making light of gambling. I understand that there are some devastating examples of where individuals are caught up in it and it has significant impacts on the families of individuals. I'm particularly concerned about, as I say, the impact on young people. We also have the country horserace meetings in Queensland which, it's been said, are the lifeblood of many Queensland towns. Queensland has a long history of gaming regulation going back to the 1840s, when we first had it.
So a balanced approach on this particular issue is absolutely essential. We have an approach, on this side of the chamber, of being balanced and productive in these matters. In contrast, we've seen the government having a piecemeal approach, which is typical of their side of politics.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:10): I rise to contribute to this important discussion today. This matter of public importance is calling for stronger and more effective action from the federal government in relation to the scourge that is gambling and gambling addiction across the country. I want to focus most of my contribution today on the harmful effects of poker machines, particularly in my home state of South Australia.
But I just want to pick up on one point first, and that is in relation to the disappointing loopholes that remain in the government's legislation that is meant to be banning gambling during live sport on television. We know, now that we've seen that legislation, that there are carve-outs and exemptions, and it allows for gambling advertising to continue. It allows for gambling advertising to continue on pay TV, where a lot of sport is shown, and it allows gambling advertising to continue until five minutes before the game starts. So you can have all the prematch entertainment going, with kids sitting in front of it and watching, and they'll be bombarded with gambling ads. We need to close those loopholes, and the Greens will be moving amendments to do so, because this type of gambling and predatory advertising of gambling is damaging to viewers, it's damaging to Australian families, and we know how bad it is to have it rammed down our throats and the throats of our children.
We know the enormous, harmful effects that poker machines have caused to Australians right across the country. In my home state of South Australia, we have more poker machines than ever before. It is disgusting to hear the arguments and the squeals from the industry that they can't possibly have a phase-out of poker machines and that it would damage the bank balances of the hotels and the pubs. If you need to rely on people's addiction—on families not being able to afford their rent, their kids' lunchbox meals or their kids' uniforms, because you're sucking and hoovering up money from families through your poker machines—I'd suggest you've got a bad business model. It's one that's corrupt; it's one that's morally bankrupt; and it's a scourge on our community.
Of course, in South Australia we did have a politician once upon a time, Nick Xenophon, who said that this was his No. 1 priority. We're in the middle of a state election right now, and one of the Nick Xenophon Team's own candidates, Paul Brown, reckons it's unrealistic to ban pokies. He said, 'You just can't remove them from every hotel and every pub.' Well, why not? If they're a scourge on the community, then they should be phased out, which is why the Greens in South Australia, through our MLC Tammy Franks, have a very strong policy to phase out pokies in hotels and pubs over five years. She is standing up for the vulnerable South Australian community. She is standing up against the wickedness of the gambling industry. It is the Greens that are leading the way in South Australia. We should phase out the pokie machines. We should get rid of them. They are a scourge on the community. They suck people's livelihoods, their incomes, and it's time that they went.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (17:16): Thank you to Senator Hanson-Young for ceding the floor to the Liberal Democrats in this debate on gambling. I don't really gamble. The money I'd waste on gambling is no more than the cost of an occasional Lotto ticket. Gambling is not something I find entertaining or worthwhile, but that doesn't mean that I look down on those who consider gambling to be entertaining and worthwhile. Each to their own.
Unfortunately, some people think that whatever they do others should do, and whatever they reject others should reject. Such people seem not to have learned what most babies learn in their first months: that they are different from other people. These people want to ban gambling or severely restrict it, not because they feel empathy for others. They want to do this because they cannot come to terms with other people having a view different from their own.
People with this mindset—and it really is a mind set in clay—don't just apply it to gambling. They apply it to their views on soft drinks, alcohol, smoking and drug taking. They apply it to their views about the shooting community, about supporters of the traditional definition of marriage and about men who flirt with women. They don't like it, and they think that no-one else should be allowed to like it either. This is an infantile mindset, and it is the mindset of an authoritarian.
My party, the Liberal Democrats, is based on libertarian values. We share the view of John Stuart Mill:
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
It is not the purpose of the government to restrict everyone from going about their business in a hopeful attempt to protect a small number of people from harming themselves and their families. We regularly hear of the small numbers of people who gamble unwisely, and figures are tossed around claiming to show how much this problem gambling costs, but we never hear of how the majority of gamblers are not problem gamblers. And no-one ever bothers to estimate the benefits generated from gambling, including the value of the pleasure to those who enjoy it.
Focusing restrictions on problem gamblers while letting the majority of gamblers do what they want is the caring position. It is the grown-up position, and it is the position of those who believe in freedom rather than authoritarianism. But, for the alternative view, let's resume normal programming in the Senate as I cede the floor back to my esteemed colleagues in the Greens.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (17:19): It's less than three weeks until the Tasmanian election, and the merchants of misery in the pokies sector are trying hard and spending hard to protect the money they are leeching from Tasmanian families, Tasmanian communities and Tasmanian small businesses. Here's a bit of Tasmanian history: since the Labor Party allowed the Federal Group to build the Wrest Point Casino in Tasmania and later handed them a monopoly licence for the state's poker machines in pubs and clubs, we have seen this mutually beneficial relationship deliver the Federal Group and the Farrell family hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, in return, they funded Labor's election campaigns with tens of thousands of dollars in political donations. If you want a definition of 'corruption' you don't have to look much further.
While Labor has finally and belatedly called time on their relationship with the Federal Group, there are signs going up in the pokies bars around Tasmania right now that basically declare how the Federal Group has bought the Liberal Party lock, stock and barrel. Make no mistake: under the pokies policy the Liberal Party are taking to the Tasmanian election, the Federal Group stand to reap an incredible $75 million windfall—money sucked off the tables of gambling addicts, away from the school levies, away from the power bills, away from the food on the tables, and into the pockets of one of Australia's richest families.
The Federal Group also have questions to answer about their relationship with Michael Kent, the Jacqui Lambie Network candidate, probably one of the most transactional politicians ever seen in Tasmania—believe me, that is really, really saying something. Mr Kent is a strong supporter of poker machines and recently defied reality by denying the existence of pokies addiction in regional Tasmania. The people of Lyons should know that a vote for Michael Kent is a vote for the Federal Group, it's actually a vote for the Liberal Party and it's a vote to lock in pokies harm and misery in Tasmania.
The question is: how much money are the Liberal Party going to get in dodgy donations from the Federal Group in compensation to encourage them to hand over this $75 million windfall? The tragic answer, of course, is that we just don't know. We don't know how much Senator Abetz was paid for getting up in here recently and singing for his supper, as he did earlier in this debate. We don't know how much the Tasmanian Liberals are getting paid—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Order! Senator McKim, Senator Abetz is not here to defend himself, but I must uphold some form of dignity as the Chair. I think at this stage that's seemingly a rather wild accusation, and I'd ask you to carefully choose your words. What I probably would encourage from you, Senator McKim, is that you just withdraw that comment.
Senator McKIM: If I might, Chair, what I actually said, if you review the Hansard, was that we do not know how much in donations Senator Abetz has received from the Federal Group. That's a fact, because Tasmania does not have state based political donations disclosure laws.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Gallacher?
Senator Gallacher: I clearly heard the imputation that Senator Abetz had 'sung for his supper' and how much he was being paid. I think that is highly disorderly, even though it's very unusual of me to leap to the defence of the other side of the chamber.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Gallacher. I would remind Senator McKim, on that point of order, under standing order 193, it is not appropriate to—what is the word, Clerk?—impute. Senator McKim, I would ask, under those circumstances, for you to please withdraw that comment.
Senator McKIM: If it's of assistance to you, Acting Deputy President, I withdraw the assertion that he sung for his supper, but I maintain that we don't know what political donations have been given by the Federal Group to Senator Abetz or any other member of the Tasmanian Liberal Party. We just don't know, and that is not good enough. Who pays the price? The Tasmanian people pay the price. The Tasmanian people are the ones that are losing out, have lost out for decades—
Senator Williams interjecting—
Senator McKIM: and will keep losing out, Senator Williams, if the Liberals get into government after the next election. It's crucial for the Tasmanian people—the voters of Tasmania—to understand that the only election result that's going to allow this leeching of food off the table of Tasmanians, this sucking of money out of Tasmanian small businesses, is a Liberal majority government. Any other outcome and the pokies are gone out of pubs and clubs—and so they should be. The Labor Party should never have given that monopoly deal to Federal Hotels in 2002. They had no mandate to do so. They received massive donations in return for it. And now, thankfully, the Labor Party has recovered itself, via the Greens, and the acid is now on the Liberals.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Order! The time for the discussion has expired.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following order of the day relating to government documents was considered:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—Resolution agreed to on 29 November 2017—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Western Australian Minister for Regional Development (Ms MacTiernan), dated 2 February 2018.
COMMITTEES
Finance and Public Administration References Committee
Report
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:25): I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the postal survey concerning same-sex marriage, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I will keep my remarks brief. I wish to start by congratulating all of those people who worked so hard to bring about marriage equality for Australia. Many people put their personal stories on the line and were most courageous in standing up to discrimination and pressure to keep quiet about the reality of their lives. People fought bravely and the outcome was well deserved. I really look forward over the coming decades to attending weddings of friends and colleagues who, for the first time, will be allowed to have their love recognised in the way that's been available to the rest of us for so long.
However, this committee was not concerned with the substantive question of marriage equality; it was concerned with the process established by government to determine this question. The committee is disappointed, to say the least, in that process. The government's approach, from the outset, was more concerned about resolving internal political problems than it was about delivering a good policy result for any of the affected groups or for the Australian community as a whole.
The government was warned repeatedly about the problems that might arise if a plebiscite was initiated and, indeed, if the survey was initiated, and specifically about the problems that would arise in terms of hateful material being directed at the LGBTIQ community. And so it came to pass. All of the warnings proved to be correct, and many people reported to our committee the hurt and distress that they and their families experienced from having hateful material propagated throughout their communities, outside their schools, in their shopping centres and on the walls of local buildings and hateful mail in their letterboxes. This process was entirely unnecessary because, at every stage in the process, the parliament needed only to do its job. The parliament needed only to take the opportunity to vote on legislation to bring about marriage equality. The parliament, under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, chose not to do so.
Our committee makes just three recommendations: We recommend that questions of human rights for minority groups should never again be resolved by public vote. We recommend that, given the evidence of harm done to the LGBTIQ community, the government consider how further funding and support could be offered to mental health and LGBTIQ communities and organisations to help address the consequences of the postal survey. And, given the evidence around participation in remote areas—and particularly Indigenous participation—we recommend that the AEC act urgently to engage with those communities to increase the number of enrolled people in remote areas and to increase the participation of those enrolled people in local, state and federal elections.
I know other senators wish to contribute on this same matter. I will leave my remarks there. I thank my fellow senators for the serious and sober way that they approached this question and the diligence with which they applied themselves to it.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (17:30): I also seek to take note of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on the postal survey concerning same-sex marriage. I congratulate Senator McAllister for her chairing of this committee, because I think this report is a very comprehensive assessment of the issues associated with holding a postal survey, a public vote on an issue of human rights. Achieving marriage equality was a massive achievement at the end of last year—certainly the highlight of my 3½ years in the Senate so far—but it was achieved at a cost, and it was an unnecessary cost.
There is great joy around the nation now as people are getting married. I haven't got to any of the wonderful weddings yet—the first one that I'm going to is in a fortnight's time—but the photos, the videos and the sharing on social media as people can finally marry the person they love are terrific. But we should not have had to go through the process of having a public vote in order to achieve this, and this report outlines the reasons why that pathway to achieve marriage equality was far from optimal. It was up to this parliament to vote on marriage equality. We could have had the vote in the parliament that we had in the last sitting weeks of last year without going through the harm and the tortuous process of this postal survey, but that was the process that the government headed us down. That's what we all had to grit our teeth and get through in order to get to the prize of people's human rights being respected and celebrated so that people, regardless of their gender or sexuality, were able to marry.
So the first finding of this report is the most pertinent one. The experience of that postal survey makes it very clear that questions of human rights for minority groups should not be resolved by a public vote, and there is so much documentation that's outlined in this report as to why that's the case. Having this public survey unleashed such an avalanche of hateful and discriminatory material—material which was inciting hatred towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people and particularly towards transgender, gender-diverse and intersex people.
I just want to read some of the accounts that are outlined in our committee report. Firstly, just to set the context of why this matters, it's not just that these were hurtful, harmful things for my community to have to endure and put up with. It had a huge impact on the mental health of that community. The New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby provided a catalogue of material which had already been disseminated prior to the survey being mailed out, and they noted:
Such material … has significant impact on the mental health of so many LGBTIQ Australians. Young LGBTIQ people are at a six times greater risk of suicide, and this material which perpetuates hateful and offensive comments is not likely to improve this situation.
That's an understatement. They also note:
The rates of suicide among young trans and intersex people are even higher, with young trans people being 35% more likely to attempt suicide.
Then this committee received submissions from people who outlined their experience of what they went through during this survey period. A 42-year-old transgender man from rural Queensland submitted his experience of the postal survey to the committee. He said:
After the Survey was announced, my world becomes hell. It was the hate and vitriol of the 1990s that I experienced, but this time our Prime Minister gave this hatred a name—respectful debate.
Another submitter described the broader effect of the postal survey on LGBTIQ people. They said:
The Postal survey to a gay and lesbian person was never just about … [same-sex marriage], it seemed like it was a survey on whether gay and lesbian people were good enough for the Australian people. Having the whole Country vote on this was a horrible feeling and having them judge you, brought up all sorts of emotions from my youth.
There were a number of surveys that various LGBTI advocacy organisations conducted on the impact of the study. The National LGBTI Health Alliance did a survey of nearly 10,000 LGBTIQ people, and they found that more than 90 per cent of respondents reported the postal vote had a negative impact on them to some degree. It said:
The most shocking finding of the study was that LGBTIQ respondents said that experiences of verbal and physical assaults more than doubled in the three months following the announcement of the postal survey compared with the prior six months.
They reported an increase of more than a third in depression, anxiety and stress during the same period.
Almost 80% of LGBTIQ people and almost 60% of allies said they found the marriage equality debate considerably or extremely stressful.
These survey results were replicated in other surveys, including ones undertaken by SHINE South Australia and just.equal.
The committee received a really heartbreaking letter, which was in the submission from Rainbow Families in New South Wales. It shared the experience of Kate and her family. It said:
We received two personalised letters from our neighbours expressing their traditional views on marriage and their negative thoughts about our family and the wider LGBTIQ community … The letters spoke about "militant lesbians storming our churches and mosques demanding to get married" …
It said:
We cried for that whole weekend and were scared to check our letter box on the Sunday … We started to think about moving out … We stopped going to the local parks … avoided going to the local supermarket. We became hermits and didn't want to be seen in the local community. My heart rate went up every time I opened the front door and went out the front for fear of seeing the neighbours. We tried to shield our 2-year-old son from our pain - but he could see it. One night he said "I’m scared of the neighbours". This was so upsetting to hear. Neighbours who we had been friendly with started being less friendly - or were we just being paranoid? My partner and I both took sick days off from work and we also left our home and area for safer more accepting areas to try and get away from it all.
This typifies the impacts of this survey on so many people. I think it's a really important learning that has been documented in this committee report as to why such a survey should never be done again.
The second important finding of our inquiry is that, given this impact on LGBTIQ people and their mental health, there is an urgent need to invest more money in mental health services for the LGBTI community. In fact, we're in a situation where not all of the budget allocation of $122 million for the postal survey was spent. It came in $41 million under budget. So the second recommendation of our committee report is that the government should consider how further funding and support could be offered to mental health and LGBTIQ organisations to help address the consequences of the postal survey. The Greens go further than that. We think that all of that $41.5 million should all be allocated to mental health services and other support services for the LGBTIQ community, to at least try to make up for some of the pain and the suffering and the hurt and the discrimination and the prejudice that was felt during this postal survey.
The final recommendation of the report reflected on how not all people got to participate in this survey equally, and that people in remote communities and Indigenous people were much more likely to not vote in the survey. We are recommending that the Australian Electoral Commission actively engaged with remote communities and Indigenous peak bodies to increase the number of enrolled people and to increase their participation. That's another very important finding. Our democracy in Australia is to be treasured. It works mostly; we have to make sure we can make it work even better.
Sadly, having plebiscites isn't the best way to make our democracy work for us. We know that we are here and that we should have been able to vote. But we need to make sure that more people are actively involved in voting and more people are actively involved in expressing their views constructively and positively so that we can have a more informed community. I'm hoping that, having put this experience in the past, we can move on from this and really celebrate the diversity of our community, celebrate the rights of our community and vow to work forward together to make sure that those rights are genuinely appreciated by everybody in our society.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (17:40): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the conduct of last year's postal survey on the question of marriage equality. I commend Senator McAllister as the chair and the other members of the committee on the work done in the limited time made available to the committee.
Now that marriage equality is a reality in Australia, it would be very easy for us on this side of the chamber to say, 'Well, all's well that ends well,' and let this matter drop. Despite our objections, the postal survey took place. It seems to have been managed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics without major problems—in fact, the ABS was thrown into the deep end in a little bit of a surprise manoeuvre from the government. There was an 80 per cent turnout, and more than 60 per cent of Australians voted for marriage equality. Finally, after some mostly respectful debate, marriage equality was put into law by this parliament last December.
But I think we should resist the temptation to put this episode behind us, especially without any analysis. Although the process insisted on by the government eventually produced the outcome that the majority of Australians wanted, the criticisms that we on this side made of this process remain valid. Before I look at some of the points made in the committee's report—and some of those have been mentioned by Senator McAllister and Senator Rice—I want to restate some of those objections. The most fundamental of our objections to the postal survey was that it was a complete, unnecessary waste of $80 million and an abdication of the responsibility of this parliament. The people of Australia elected this parliament to carry on their business, to debate and to vote on legislation.
The original Marriage Act was passed by parliament in 1960. It was amended by parliament in 2004 to preclude the possibility of same-sex marriages being recognised in Australia. On neither occasion was a plebiscite or survey thought necessary. If the Marriage Act was to be amended again to create marriage equality, it was the job of the parliament to amend it. Why were we forced to accept the waste of time and money represented by the postal survey? Why was the parliament not allowed to do the job it was elected to do? There was only one reason, and that was the weakness of the Prime Minister in his own cabinet and in his own party, which made it impossible for the government to allow the parliament to debate and vote on this question, even on a private member's bill. There was too great a risk that the deep split in the Liberal Party and the lack of support that the Prime Minister enjoys in his own cabinet and in his own party would be exposed. This is why the committee said, in its first recommendation:
… questions of human rights for minority groups should not be resolved by a public vote.
That is a basic lesson to be learned from this exercise. While I don't have much confidence that the present government will accept it, I hope future governments will not repeat this folly.
We also objected to the idea of a plebiscite or postal survey because of the likelihood that such an exercise would lead to campaigns of abuse and denigration against people from the LGBTI community. One of the reasons we have a representative democracy rather than a so-called direct democracy based on plebiscites is that representative democracy allows the passions and prejudices that exist in any political community to be mediated through the parliamentary process. Not for nothing is the plebiscite known as the tool of despots and demagogues.
Sadly but predictably, our fears on this front were fully justified. Let me quote from the committee's report:
This committee has received evidence from a large number of submitters about offensive and misleading behaviour and material that has been deeply distressing to the LGBTIQ community and highly divisive within the community more broadly. It is the committee's view that this behaviour and material is a direct result of the postal survey process and would not have occurred had the parliament simply debated and voted on legislation to legalise same-sex marriage.
The committee's report comments on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017, which was the government's response to the torrent of abuse provoked by the decision to hold the postal survey. The committee noted that this bill proved insufficient to curb much of the offensive material distributed by mail and throughout social media.
I agree with the committee's conclusion:
… much of this material was offensive not by accident but by design … the authors intended to … cause offence and hurt to others. It is disappointing that the government gave them an excuse to do so by pursuing a public vote on the question of same sex marriage.
In the light of all of this, the committee report recommends:
… the Australian Government consider how further funding and support could be offered to mental health and LGBTIQ organisations to help address the consequences of the postal survey.
Senator Rice has spoken at greater length about this.
I would strongly support the whole of the report and the recommendations contained at the back of that report, and I hope the government can act upon that report promptly.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Thank you, Senator Kitching. Do you seek to continue your remarks?
Senator KITCHING: I have concluded.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Report
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (17:46): I present the fourth interim report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise as Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to speak on the fourth interim report for the committee's inquiry into the impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities.
As have noted previously, the committee has tabled interim reports after each of the rural and regional hearings so that issues highlighted by local communities can be raised soon after the hearings instead of waiting for the final report to be handed down.
This report covers public hearings in Bendigo and Wodonga in Victoria. In addition to two public hearings in Victoria, the committee conducted a site visit to the Puckapunyal military area, just outside Seymour in Victoria.
Focus of the committee
As outlined in the previous interim reports, the 2016 Defence white paper, released in February 2016, set out the government's intent to strengthen and increase investment in Defence capabilities.
Government ministers have emphasised that the new investment in Defence will create jobs across the regions and bring benefits to local businesses and communities.
These policies and statements from the government have generated expectations that the regions will be able to benefit directly and indirectly through the participation of local businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, in building Defence capability.
The focus of the committee has been to investigate whether regions, local communities and businesses have sufficient awareness of and effective access to information about the plans to upgrade training facilities so that they can be in a position to offer goods and services.
When visiting Victoria, the committee was pleased to hear that there was a genuine goodwill from local councils, businesses and community representatives towards the Defence presence in their region, as well as recognition that there are benefits to both Defence and the broader community as a result of collaborative relationships.
To ensure this level of goodwill continues, it is important for Defence to ensure that existing relationships are maintained and new opportunities for communication and cooperation are pursued.
A number of specific issues were examined by the committee in the Victorian hearings.
Communication and engagement
Similar to previous hearings in this inquiry, the committee heard that in Victoria that the local base commandant is central to building a collaborative relationship between Defence and the local community.
Witnesses provided examples of successful events that had been run in collaboration with the base commandant.
Of interest to the committee is that the length of time a Defence presence has been in a particular region was not necessarily a determining factor for the presence of established and well-functioning communication mechanisms in the local community.
The committee will give this issue further consideration in the final report.
Evidence to the committee indicated that there are some formal mechanisms in place for organisations such as local councils and chambers of commerce to communicate with Defence.
Other communication occurs on a more informal basis. With particular reference to emergency services management, the committee heard examples of consultative forums comprising representatives from Defence, local government and other agencies that are working and operating effectively.
It was suggested that these forums could be used as a model for other areas of engagement with the community.
Defence engagement with industry
Local business representatives in Wodonga suggested that Defence is often not actively engaged with industry, particularly when developing tender documents.
Businesses feel that they have a contribution to make to assist Defence to ensure that their tender documents reflect industry standards and current practice.
It was noted that early engagement with industry may benefit Defence projects.
Payment system
The committee heard from some business representatives highlighting the challenges experienced to receive timely payment for work undertaken for Defence contracts, particularly when the work was undertaken by, or for, tier 1 contractors.
Businesses had positive experiences with the payment system used by Defence but reported challenges with payment systems used by prime contractors, which often led to payment delays.
It was suggested that in order to improve the experience of businesses undertaking Defence work, consistency in the method of payment would be beneficial.
Contribution of small and medium enterprises
It was very pleasing to hear about the contribution made by small and medium enterprises to fulfilling Defence contracts.
I would like to take the opportunity to provide more detail about one particular example provided to the committee.
In Wodonga, the committee heard from Pentarch, an organisation specialising in the disposal of munitions and managing ammunitions packaging, with offices located in both Victoria and New South Wales.
Describing themselves as a 'small prime contractor', the representative from Pentarch explained the work they undertake for Defence, with a lot of involvement from local industry.
The committee heard that Pentarch produces what they call a 'family tree' to illustrate their involvement with local industry.
In reference to the Victorian site: of the 91 suppliers, 55 are local. Similarly, at the New South Wales site, 58 of the 98 suppliers used are located within 100 kilometres.
This organisation recognises the value of local industry and also noted that they have encouraged other prime contractors to use local suppliers.
Access to Defence facilities
A key issue raised at both hearings in Victoria related to the ability of community members to access facilities located on Defence bases.
Of particular concern to witnesses was facilitating easier access to military museums located within the perimeter of Defence bases.
It was emphasised that increasing visitor numbers to these facilities is important in the context of the local regional tourism industry as well as promoting greater community awareness of Australia's military history.
Although the military museums located on Defence bases in Puckapunyal and Wodonga are open to the public, access can be difficult due to security requirements.
Witnesses suggested that Defence consider options to improve access to these valuable facilities.
Recommendations
The committee has made five recommendations in this interim report:
• that Defence, in consultation with local councils, review the existing regional communications mechanisms and consider establishing a regular forum to discuss local business opportunities;
• to include a provision in Base Services contracts for tier 1 contractors to use a payment system similar to that currently used by Defence; and
• to make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the area;
• that Defence review the accessibility of military museums located within Defence bases and investigate options to improve access; and
• consideration be given to tailor security arrangements to the PMA in limited circumstances.
Once again I thank all of the committee members for an extremely bipartisan approach to this inquiry.
The evidence gathered so far has been most valuable, from a number of locations around the country.
While there have been a number of location-specific issues identified, the inquiry has highlighted a broader, systemic set of issues that are ongoing.
For example, the committee has received a submission from an organisation providing additional evidence following the committee's first public hearing in Port Augusta.
A key issue highlighted at this hearing was the Cultana Training Area Expansion project, and the submission expresses concern about the level of engagement between the prime contractor for the project and the local businesses.
This is an issue that has been raised at every site that we've held hearings at around Australia.
We will hold a final public hearing with Defence to consider a number of these systemic issues before presenting the final report.
I would finish on this. There's a 2016 white paper that sets out the Defence objectives. We visited a number of sites. We found systemic issues. There is no dissent, I believe, among the general membership of the committee. We are doing useful work to engage regional and local economies with Defence expenditure. It's a no-brainer. It's common sense. All governments would want to act this way. We need to sort out these systemic issues about broader consultation and the economic opportunities, and fix systemic issues like not paying people on time.
7
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Community Affairs References Committee
Report
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:56): I present an interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on aged care assessment and accreditation.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator SIEWERT: I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This particular interim report—I will go into why it is an interim report during my remarks—looks at the effectiveness of the Aged Care Quality Assessment and accreditation framework for protecting residents from abuse and poor practices and ensuring proper clinical and medical care standards are maintained and practised. This inquiry was established to look at the effectiveness of the current frameworks in ensuring that older Australians get quality aged care. In the first instance we had a focus on the shocking revelations of abuse and lack of care that were made about the Oakden facility and specifically the Makk and McLeay wards.
At this point I thank all of the witnesses who gave us evidence, particularly those—by and large they were the relatives of former residents—who shared the most personal experiences of the appalling treatment that many of their relatives received. Many of those witnesses shared evidence that was deeply concerning and troubling both to them and to the members of the committee that heard it. Quite frankly, how long this outrageous situation went on for still boggles my mind. Our report goes through the time line of accreditation and review from when the processes began there in 1998 until it closed. There were many failures on many occasions. Despite this it took a long time before the alarm was raised about the appalling circumstances in Oakden, many of which have been aired in the media.
In February 2016 Mr Bob Spriggs, a resident of Oakden, was admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital emergency department with unexplained significant bruising to his hip, a chest infection and severe dehydration. In June 2016 the Spriggs family made a complaint to the Principal Community Visitor in South Australia, who raised concerns with the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network, commonly known as NALHN. After repeated unsuccessful attempts over four months to seek a response from the NALHN and the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist SA regarding the complaint, the Principal Community Visitor noted the inaction in his annual report, which was sent to the South Australian Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse on 30 September 2016. The principal visitor wrote to the South Australian minister on 14 October 2016 to formally request a review of the service delivery at Oakden. Then the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network met with the Spriggs family regarding their complaint.
The annual report was tabled in the South Australian parliament on 7 December 2016 and generated media interest with the issues it contained. Subsequently, the chief executive officer of the NALHN agreed to meet with the Spriggs family in December 2016 and, after this meeting, requested the chief psychiatrist undertake a review of Oakden. We know that that ultimately led to Oakden being closed. That's how long it took. We should note that Mr Spriggs's family were not the first family to raise concerns.
I'll cut to the chase here because I know there are a number of other people who want to speak. The report states:
4.70 The evidence presented to this inquiry, which includes the reports of two in-depth inquiries into the services provided at Oakden, shows that Oakden had a toxic culture of wilful negligence, cover-up and avoiding management and regulatory responsibilities, which resulted in a 'care' service which shocked the two external reviews tasked with making an in-depth investigation into Oakden.
4.71 Services at Oakden included appallingly sub-standard clinical and personal care, as well as abusive practices, some of which have now been reported as criminal acts. Evidence of this substandard care was noticeable to anyone who cared to pay attention, but it seems that no-one in a position to effect change wanted to pay the required attention.
I am quoting directly from our report here:
4.72 The committee commends the SA Government for the extensive actions taken to remediate the services at Oakden. However, the committee must also strongly condemn the length of time it took for the relevant SA authorities to take action after receiving serious complaints and clear warnings relating to Oakden. Some of the instances of abuse or neglect occurred well after the date of the Spriggs family complaint, and most likely would not have been possible had appropriate action been taken at the time of the complaint.
4.73 The committee is deeply concerned that the Quality Agency visited Oakden and had no concerns with the service as late as November 2016. This a mere month before the CEO of NALHN formed a serious view about the quality of service at Oakden, a view that was based on complaints made five months earlier. The Committee is not convinced by the Agency's explanation as to how this came about.
4.74 The committee believes that if a situation like that at Oakden can occur for many years under the eyes of the regulators, then there are serious concerns about the quality of oversight for the broader aged care sector, and the quality of care being provided to vulnerable aged Australians.
4.75 The committee cannot be confident that there are not other aged care facilities where abuse and neglect are occurring elsewhere in Australia.
4.76 The committee notes that while the two key inquiries into the standards of care at Oakden have concluded, investigations into individual instances at Oakden are ongoing. These investigations are by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency into the standards of professional care being given by individual registered health practitioners, by SA Police into assaults on residents under the guise of restrictive practice, and by SA Independent Commission Against Corruption into the appropriate actions of individual local, state and federal management personnel.
… … …
4.77 The committee strongly agrees with the views expressed by the majority of submitters that while Oakden is at the extreme end of sub-standard aged care services, it exemplifies broader concerns with the quality and oversight frameworks for the overall aged care sector.
4.78 Of particular concern to the committee is the body of evidence relating to model of care issues, definitions of personal versus medical care, and clinical governance within aged care facilities. The aged care sector appears divided in how it defines the provision of allied health or medical services, and who takes ultimate responsibility for the quality of service provision or the oversight and regulation of that health service.
As you can see, we were very concerned about the evidence that we heard. I'll cut very quickly to our recommendations, but I should preface this by noting that the government commissioned, as part of the response to this, the Carnell-Paterson report, in which they've responded to one of the recommendations, and we received evidence that they'll be responding further, most likely as part of the budget announcements later in the year. There's other ongoing work as well, including the new Single Aged Care Quality Framework, due to be introduced in July 2018, which will play major roles in ongoing examination of the Aged Care Quality Assessment and accreditation framework. Continued inquiry from this committee as part of the ongoing work of this inquiry will be directed at the outcomes of these external bodies.
So our first recommendation is:
The committee recommends the extension of this inquiry into the effectiveness of the Aged Care Quality Assessment and accreditation framework for protecting residents from abuse and poor practices, and ensuring proper clinical and medical care standards are maintained and practised.
The other recommendation is:
The committee recommends that in the current aged care oversight reforms being undertaken, all dementia-related and other mental health services being delivered in an aged care context must be correctly classified as health services not aged care services—
this was another significant issue during the inquiry—
and must therefore be regulated by the appropriate health quality standards and accreditation processes.
We heard a large amount of evidence. My colleagues, I know, will share their thoughts and experiences during the inquiry. We'd like to take this opportunity to very quickly thank our secretariat, who, as usual, did a brilliant job pulling this together. I urge the government to take on board our recommendations.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (18:06): I too rise to speak on this report. We are short of time, but I want to concur with Senator Siewert's comments. The inquiry was established, as we've heard, to review the effectiveness of the aged-care framework, to ensure older Australians receive the quality care they deserve and to protect them from the abuse that occurred at the Makk and McLeay wards at the Oakden Older Persons Mental Health Service in South Australia.
The committee was presented with overwhelming, heartbreaking evidence from family members about the abuse, the neglect and the unprofessional care standards that were applied. Among the things that were raised with us during the evidence were residents being left in soiled clothing for long periods of time and not washed, patients not being fed properly, staff force-feeding sleeping patients, patients being restrained for significant portions of the day, unexplained falls and bruises, and patients being overmedicated.
As Senator Siewert said, if we turn to the situation of the Spriggs family, medication mismanagement was common, and many family members reported oversedation and overdoses. In one instance recounted to the committee, an overmedicated patient was unresponsive for 12 hours—12 hours!—before staff called an ambulance. The committee also heard the story of Mr Spriggs, who passed away just six months after being admitted to Oakden. The Spriggs family have detailed a number of the instances of neglect and failure of care which occurred while Mr Spriggs was a resident at Oakden, and Senator Siewert touched on those. They include one very serious instance of medication mismanagement that saw Mr Spriggs admitted to hospital after he received 10 times the correct dose of an antipsychotic drug. The family's evidence was heart-wrenching. They have had to repeat this on a number of occasions, but they were so grateful that they were being heard by the committee, and I think that should be noted.
The evidence presented to the committee shows that the Oakden facility failed to provide an appropriate model of care. I don't think there's any argument about that. The committee heard from a former staff member of Oakden, Ms Sharon Olsson, who detailed many toxic aspects of nursing and management culture in the facility which led to a culture of fear, silence, cover-ups and inadequate care. I want to put on the record that the committee also heard evidence that there were some dedicated staff whom family members said they felt comfortable leaving their loved ones with. Unfortunately they were too few.
I want to turn my attention to the quality agency. The Aged Care Quality Agency appeared as a witness at both the Adelaide hearing and in Canberra last week. One of the most significant concerns the Aged Care Quality Agency centres on is evidence that the recommendations of the auditors were not always taken on board or were overridden by the quality agency in relation to Oakden. In January 2008 the assessment team that had conducted the evaluation recommended that the facility not be accredited, and the quality agency overrode this decision. This was in 2008—10 years earlier. As a member of the committee, I found the lack of acknowledgement and responsibility about renewing the facility's accreditation after repeated noncompliance at audits absolutely appalling.
The CEO of the quality agency, Mr Ryan, expressed that 'there were clearly learnings for us in terms of the way that we undertake our work' but 'responsibility for what occurred at Oakden, under the Aged Care Act, squarely falls with the provider.' Mr Ryan reaffirmed the quality agency's refusal to take responsibility by saying, 'I don't accept that there was chronic failure on our behalf'. I'd hate to be a witness and hear the evidence of when he would accept that they had failed in their responsibilities. I am ashamed, as an Australian, to have sat through those two hearings and to hear this evidence, and to have the head of the agency saying they had some 'learnings'. There are several points at which Oakden could have been closed—as early, as I said, as 2008—rather than continuing to operate for almost another 10 years. The continued blame-shifting from the agency does very little to reassure me of the agency's ability to learn from the past. I know the committee has made remarks about Mr Ryan's evidence in the report, but my disbelief of the attitude from the head of the agency quite frankly leaves me speechless.
In response to the care issues at Oakden coming to light, the Turnbull government announced an independent review on the national aged-care quality regulatory processes, commonly known as the Carnell-Paterson review. The Carnell-Paterson review made 10 recommendations, and the Australian government—the Turnbull government—immediately moved to implement recommendation 8, for unannounced audit visits. One recommendation to fix this issue is simply not good enough. I don't have a lot of confidence, I have to say, in the Turnbull government when it comes to delivering when we're talking about aged care. There are over a dozen important reviews and reports currently gathering dust on the desk of the Minister for Aged Care. There are a number of recent reviews and inquiries, including the Productivity Commission's 2011 report, Caring for older Australians, the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2017 Elder abuse report, and the report of Senate inquiry into the aged-care workforce, whose recommendations remain unimplemented. During the Canberra hearings last Monday night department officials confirmed that the department has no oversight over the agency. I'll repeat that: the federal department responsible for aged care in this country says it has no oversight over the agency, and that the agency is directly accountable to the minister. We still have had no further recommendations from the Carnell-Paterson report adopted.
I, too, would like to put on record my gratitude, and I know my committee members share it. How heartfelt it was for those families to give evidence, relive their tragedies, relive the hurt and abuse, and verbalise once again what happened to their loved ones. To all those who gave submissions, I want to thank you. Your voices have been heard. We are speaking up. I'm sure this won't be the last time that we speak about this issue. The committee heard from family members during the hearing on 21 November 2017 in Adelaide, and that evidence was overwhelmingly what brought us to the final report that we've given in relation to the Oakden situation. No-one should ever have to go through what those families and particularly those residents of Oakden lived through. It does not matter whether you have a mental health issue or you're living with dementia. No Australian, no human being, should be treated like that. Blame-shifting from one government or one agency to another is not good enough. It needs to end, and it needs to end now. This is absolutely crucial as our population ages and we see an increased number of people living with dementia and mental illnesses.
Unfortunately, I say with great regret—and I know I speak for everyone who sat in on any of those hearings—that we cannot change what happened at Oakden. We can't change that. We can't take the pain away from those families. But what we do have a responsibility to do is to ensure that every Australian older person and every Australian who has mental health issues who goes into residential care in this country are treated with respect and dignity and given the best possible care. We are a rich nation, and we should be able to lead the world and provide the world's best care for our most vulnerable people in this community.
I implore the minister and this government to act swiftly. There is no need to wait till the budget. There is no need for us to wait in anticipation that they might finally step up to the plate and do something. That responsibility is upon their shoulders today, and they can do something. They are the government. The families of those poor residents who died and were treated so abysmally need to know that their government has heard and that it is going to act now. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, I just let you know that this debate concludes at 6.25, so you won't get your full 10 minutes.
Senator PATRICK ( South Australia ) ( 18:17 ): That's fine. I also rise to speak on this report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee. This is a very important report because it deals with one of the most important measures of effective government and, indeed, of any advanced society—namely, how we treat some of the most vulnerable members of our community. The committee has examined the circumstances and the failures that allowed for the long-term abuse and poor care of residents at the Oakden aged mental healthcare facility.
The events that triggered this report were tragic and appalling. They were also avoidable and should never have happened. South Australia's Chief Psychiatrist, Dr Aaron Groves, found that at Oakden there was widespread abuse, overmedication, excessive use of restraint and neglect over a period of more than a decade. As mentioned by Senator Siewert, this investigation was sparked by the alleged overdosing of former resident Mr Bob Spriggs, who was found with bruises thought to have been caused by inappropriate use of restraints. The events at Oakden clearly involve failures in the most basic duty of care to very vulnerable people and their families. 'Shameful' is the description that is most appropriately applied to this state of affairs.
The committee has done well to produce its report in a timely manner—something that stands in contrast to the many delays that have characterised other responses to the situation at Oakden. The secretariat, in particular, have done an excellent job of distilling the evidence received and accurately identifying the issues, and I thank them for that. NXT strongly supports the findings and recommendations of the report.
As the committee identifies, some blame must and should be directed at the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency for their failure to detect and deal with what were systemic and life-threatening problems at Oakden. I share Senator Polley's concerns about Mr Ryan's responses to the committee. Ultimately, however, the primary responsibility for the disgrace that was Oakden lies with the South Australian government. The South Australian government were directly responsible for the causes of the failed operations at Oakden. These include (1) inexcusably, the failure to have an appropriate model of care, which the South Australian Chief Psychiatrist summed up by saying, 'Oakden is not providing the right care at the right time from the right team'; (2) poor infrastructure, as Oakden's facilities were entirely unsuitable for its purpose; (3) major failures in understaffing and inadequate staff training; and (4) profound failures in clinical governance.
Finally, there was undoubtedly a toxic culture. Morale at Oakden was very poor. There was bickering, dissent, and disrespect amongst staff in an atmosphere that could only be described as secretive, inward-looking and poisonous. This was a deeply dysfunctional facility, quite unsuited to the care of frail and vulnerable people. These problems were the results of longstanding neglect by the South Australian government. It is astounding that it was not recognised by South Australian health authorities.
The South Australian government failed to properly fund this facility, because their health budget was heading into crisis, haemorrhaging from the new Royal Adelaide Hospital costs, which eventually blew out to more than $700 million. One can only imagine what a tiny portion of that $700 million could have done to the lives of those that suffered at Oakden.
As stated in the committee's report, family members' accounts of Oakden consistently featured themes of feeling betrayed by the public aged-care system. For too long, their grave concerns about members of their families were ignored and dismissed by an institution, a system, that refused to look at itself. They felt let down by a system that was intended to help vulnerable people. They were let down, and the results were tragic. It was the South Australian government that failed them, and that failure can only be characterised as shameful.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator, are you seeking—
Senator Siewert: I suspect he seeks leave to continue his remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Economics References Committee
Report
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:22): I present the government's response to the interim report of the Economics References Committee on its inquiry into non-conforming building products, aluminium composite cladding, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Interim Report: Aluminium Composite Cladding February 2018
Background
On 23 June 2015, the Senate referred an inquiry into non-conforming building products to the Senate Economics References Committee (the Committee), to examine:
the economic impact of non-conforming building products on the Australian building and construction industry;
the impact of non-conforming building products on:
industry supply chains, including importers, manufacturers and fabricators,
workplace safety and any associated risks,
costs passed on to customers, including any insurance and compliance costs; and
the overall quality of Australian buildings;
possible improvements to the current regulatory frameworks for ensuring that building products conform to Australian standards, with particular reference to the effectiveness of:
policing and enforcement of existing regulations,
independent verification and assessment systems,
surveillance and screening of imported building products, and
restrictions and penalties imposed on non-conforming building products; and
any other related matters.
The inquiry lapsed following the dissolution of the Senate (44th Parliament) on 9 May 2016, for the general election on 2 July 2016.
On 13 October 2016, the Committee resolved to re-open submissions to the inquiry, under the 45th Parliament.
As part of its broader inquiry into non-conforming building products, the Committee adopted additional terms of reference to seek submissions regarding the illegal importation of products containing asbestos, and their impact on the health and safety of the Australian community.
Submissions to the inquiry closed on 18 January 2017.
The Committee was previously required to report on its terms of reference relating to asbestos imports by 28 April 2017, with a full report on all terms of reference by 25 May 2017.
On 30 March 2017, the Senate granted an extension of time for the Committee to report by 31 August 2017 for the interim report on the illegal importation of products containing asbestos, and 31 October 2017 for the final report.
Following the Grenfell Tower fire in London, on 21 June 2017, the Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, the Hon Craig Laundy MP, wrote to the Chair of the Committee, Senator Chris Ketter, to request the inquiry be used to conduct a public hearing to specifically examine the non-compliant use of cladding products in Australia.
The Committee agreed to prepare an additional interim report on the implications of the use of non-compliant external cladding materials in Australia as a priority.
On 17 August 2017, the Senate agreed to extend the reporting dates for the interim report on asbestos to 14 November 2017, and the final inquiry report on 30 April 2018.
On 6 September 2017, the Committee released its interim report on aluminium composite cladding, which included the following eight recommendations:
1. The Australian government implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of Polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency.
2. The Commonwealth government work with state and territory governments to establish a national licensing scheme, with requirements for continued professional development for all building practitioners.
3. The Building Ministers' Forum give further consideration to introducing nationally consistent measures to increase accountability for participants across the supply chain.
4. That the Commonwealth government consider making all Australian Standards and codes freely available.
5. The Commonwealth government consider imposing a penalties regime for non-compliance with the NCC such as revocation of accreditation or a ban from tendering for Commonwealth funded construction work and substantial financial penalties.
6. The Commonwealth government ensure the Federal Safety Commissioner is adequately resourced to ensure the office is able to carry out its duties in line with the new audit function and projected work flow.
7. The Commonwealth government's decision to give further consideration to Director Identification Numbers and recommends that it expedites this process in order to prevent directors from engaging in illegal phoenix activity.
8. That state and territory government's work together to develop a nationally consistent statutory duty of care protection for end users in the residential strata sector.
The Australian Government has given consideration to the findings and recommendations presented in the Committee's interim report, and tables the following response for the Committee's consideration ahead of the final inquiry report.
Government Response
The Australian Government recognises there is genuine community concern about the non-compliant use of combustible external wall cladding in Australia, and supports the decision of the Committee to specifically examine this issue as part of its broader inquiry into non-conforming building products.
The regulatory framework governing the built environment in Australia centres on the constitutional authority held by state and territory governments. As such, there are constitutional limitations on the extent to which the Australian Government can control building and construction activities.
For this reason, the Australian Government works collaboratively with the state and territory governments to ensure a nationally consistent and cost effective approach to building and construction regulation, through the development and maintenance of the National Construction Code (NCC).
The NCC sets the minimum performance requirements for the design, construction and performance of buildings throughout Australia. The NCC provides the states and territories with model regulation that is fully or partially adopted through their respective legislation and for which they have responsibility for implementing.
Further to the state and territory regulatory frameworks, the Australian Government is responsible for:
Ensuring Australia's standards and conformance assessment infrastructure is consistent with international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (WTO TBT) Agreement;
Enforcing customs requirements and border controls on imported goods;
Applying the Australian Consumer Law at a national level, jointly with states and territories;
Promoting workplace, health and safety (WHS) through the Federal Safety Commissioner, and
Implementing the Building and Construction WHS Accreditation Scheme.
The Prime Minister, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, has sought assurance from State and Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers that all governments will work together to determine the extent to which the non-compliant use of cladding products is an issue across Australia.
The Prime Minister has strongly encouraged all governments to carry out a greater level of auditing of high-rise buildings, and appropriate compliance and enforcement action, to ensure the safety of Australia's built environment.
The Government considers, based on evidence submitted to the Committee and the Committee's findings, that there is a broader issue of non-compliance with the state and territory regulatory framework that is undermining the effective implementation of Australia's world class NCC.
As such, through the Building Ministers' Forum (BMF), all governments have agreed to examine the broader compliance and enforcement problems, within the regulatory and administrative systems, which impair the effective implementation of the NCC, such as:
licensing and accreditation;
certification and inspections;
quality controls and assurance processes; and
auditing and enforcement practices.
The outcome of the BMF Assessment will be to make recommendations on a range of issues to establish a national best practice model for compliance and enforcement, and improve the building and construction regulatory system.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the BMF Assessment, the Australian Government believes the most valuable course of action to safeguarding our built environment is to ensure:
qualified and competent practitioners are engaged throughout the construction process;
our building certification systems are not compromised and are understood by industry;
our building regulators have the capacity and capability to monitor compliance across the supply chain; and
our existing regulatory systems are effectively audited and enforced.
Building Ministers ' Forum
The Building Ministers' Forum (BMF) is a ministerial‐level body consisting of Australian Government, State and Territory Ministers responsible for building and plumbing policy.
The BMF is responsible for overseeing governance of the built environment. As such, one of its primary responsibilities is to establish the strategic priorities for the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB).
The ABCB was established in 1994 through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), as a cooperative reform of building regulations by the Australian Government and the states and territories.
The IGA recognises that the states and territories have primary responsibility for regulating building and construction. In order to facilitate the development of a more efficient and comprehensive code, the Australian, state and territory governments, through the IGA, commit to provide annual funding contributions towards the operations of the ABCB.
The BMF also considers other policy and regulatory issues impacting the building and construction industries. While Ministers each receive advice from their respective officials, the BMF has recognized the benefits of cooperation and alignment between jurisdictions on issues of national significance.
In addition to the ABCB, the BMF has also established the Senior Officers' Group (SOG) and the Building Regulators' Forum (BRF) to provide policy advice to the BMF and coordinate regulatory matters, respectively.
The reporting arrangements to the BMF are illustrated by the diagram at Attachment A.
Australian Building Codes Board
The ABCB is a multi-jurisdictional standards writing body, responsible for developing and maintaining the NCC, and providing technical code and standards advice to the BMF.
The ABCB consists of an independent Chair, ex‐officio representatives from the Australian, state and territory governments, up to five industry representatives, and one representative of local government.
The ABCB operates in accordance with the IGA, which is updated from time to time. The current version of the IGA is provided at Attachment B.
The ABCB is supported in its work program by the ABCB Office, which resides in the Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. The ABCB Office implements the ABCB's decisions and provides the ABCB with technical and administrative support.
Senior Officers ' Group
The BMF established the SOG on 31 July 2015, to investigate and develop a national strategic response to issues of non‐conforming building products (NCBP). The formation of the SOG demonstrated a need for jurisdictions to collaborate on policy matters of national significance, beyond that of the NCC and the remit of the ABCB.
The SOG is responsible for developing and providing strategic advice to the BMF on national building and construction policy issues and any other matters requested by the BMF.
The SOG is currently chaired by the Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works, and consists of senior officers from the Commonwealth and each jurisdictions' building authority. The Terms of Reference for the SOG are provided at Attachment C.
Building Regulators ' Forum
The BRF was established to provide an intergovernmental forum for state and territory building regulators to work cooperatively and efficiently on regulatory responses to issues of national significance, in addition to providing the BMF with regulatory advice.
The BRF consists of the senior regulator of each state's and territory's building authority, and representation from relevant Commonwealth agencies.
The BRF is currently chaired by the Victorian Building Authority, and consists of the senior regulator of each jurisdictions' building authority. The Terms of Reference for the BRF are provided at Attachment D.
BMF Measures to Improve the Safety of Australia ' s Built Environment
The Australian Government has been working in partnership with all governments, through the BMF, to assure the Australian community that our buildings, in particular our high-rise buildings, are safe.
On 16 December 2016, the BMF endorsed the implementation of a comprehensive package of measures to address the health and safety risks associated with the non-compliant use of cladding in high-rise buildings.
As part of the package of measures, the ABCB will implement a number of changes to the NCC, including:
implementing a more rigorous testing standard for determining the fire safety of external wall assemblies (AS 5113:2016);
introducing a new Verification Method to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Requirements and achieve equivalence to the existing Deemed-To-Satisfy Provisions by including additional fire safety measures as a condition of using AS 5113 tested external wall assemblies;
increased stringency for the sprinkler protection of balconies on residential buildings through referencing of a revised standard for automatic fire sprinkler systems (AS 2118.1:2017);
clarifying language within the NCC relating to the use of external wall claddings and attachments; and
stricter compliance documentation requirements in the NCC's evidence of suitability provisions.
On 30 June 2017, in response to the concerns raised as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire in London, the BMF agreed to examine the broader compliance and enforcement problems within the building and construction systems that affect the effective implementation of the NCC.
The BMF Assessment will consider and make recommendations on the establishment of a national best practice model for compliance and enforcement for building and construction, to improve the compliance and safety of Australian buildings.
The Terms of Reference for the BMF Assessment are provided at Attachment E.
It is acknowledged that the Committee supported the BMF's decision to commission the BMF Assessment, and appoint Professor Peter Shergold AC and Ms Bronwyn Weir as the independent experts. 1
On 30 June 2017, the BMF also directed the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) to expedite the implementation of a comprehensive package of measures to prevent non-compliant use of wall cladding on high-rise buildings, through an amendment (as outlined above) to Volume One of the 2016 edition of the NCC (rather than waiting until the release of NCC 2019).
The ABCB Office published the Public Comment Draft for NCC 2016 Volume One Amendment on 18 August 2017, with feedback on the proposed amendment closing on 10 September 2017.
The ABCB Office and the ABCB's technical advisory committees have reviewed the responses received on the Public Committee Draft and recommendations will be made to the ABCB for its November 2017 meeting. As such, the amendment is expected to be adopted in early March 2018.
The ABCB will also publish an updated Fire Performance of External Walls and Cladding Advisory Note (to reflect the amended provisions), and a new Evidence of Suitability Handbook.
In addition, on 6 October 2017, the BMF agreed that all Ministers will use their available laws and powers to prevent the use of aluminium composite panels (ACPs) with a polyethylene (PE) core on class 2, 3, or 9 buildings of two or more storeys, and class 5, 6, 7 or 8 of three or more storeys until it can be demonstrated that manufacturers, importers, installers, working in collaboration with building practitioners, are complying with:
1. the new fire testing standard for external wall cladding products (AS 5113:2016); and
2. a newly established system of permanent labelling on cladding products to prevent product substitution.
To ensure ACP products are supplied and used for the purpose for which they are designed, the BMF agreed to address inappropriate advertising and labelling of PE aluminium composite cladding utilising available laws and powers, and to ask the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs (CAF) to create a national information standard for ACP products.
Aluminium Composite Panels
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) was asked to provide advice on the various types of ACPs currently manufactured. The CSIRO has expertise in the testing of building facade materials, as well as the assessment of the configuration of materials in construction in accordance with relevant building codes and standards.
ACPs are legitimate products with a multitude of uses for example, advertising, signage, interior design features, caravans, refrigeration and freezer applications, and trailers.
ACPs are flat sheet materials, faced with thin aluminium sheet (typically 0.5mm thick) on both sides. The thickness of the overall panels are often in the 3 to 4 mm range, but examples up to 6mm are available.
The various types of ACP are distinguished by their core materials, which significantly influence the fire properties of each panel. While some examples of 100 per cent mineral core ACPs have been identified, the majority of ACPs have a core material that is a mixture of a polymer (polyethylene) and mineral fillers or fire retardants. The proportion of the polymer can be as little 1-3 per cent or as high as nearly 100 per cent.
ACPs are described in manufacturer's marketing material as being one of three categories:
1. A2—ACPs are classified as 'A2' when tested to European fire certification usually have 3 per cent or less of polymer.
2. FR (an abbreviation for fire retardant)—FR-ACPs contain some fire retardant in the core and typically contain around 30 per cent polymer.
3. PE (an abbreviation of polyethylene)—PE-ACPs have a core close to 100 per cent polymer.
A number of ACPs using A2 and FR descriptors are certified for compliance under the CodeMark certification scheme for use externally on Type A and B construction 2 3, but with specific limitations on their application and use.
A further variant of ACP does not include polymers, but instead uses an aluminium 'honeycomb' core, bonded with adhesive. Some examples of this ACP have been shown to comply with non-combustibility concessions provided in the NCC, and subject to meeting additional requirements of AS 1530.3 'may be used where a non-combustible material is required'4.
It should be noted that none of the three descriptions (A2, FR, PE) relate to test methods or provisions in Australia's NCC. 'Non-combustible' is a defined term in the NCC, determined by the test method in AS 1530.1. It is unlikely that any ACP would meet this criteria because in practice, the fire performance of an external wall is not only dependent on the material properties, but also on aspects of the whole system including (but not limited to), sheet fixing method, insulation type, cavity fire barriers, geometry and penetrations.
Accordingly, when engineered appropriately, some ACPs may meet the performance requirements of the NCC for external walls. Further, it is noted that PE-ACPs may also have other applications permitted under the current requirements of the NCC, with examples including as an attachment, signage, interior wall lining and design features.
The Committee's focus was primarily on the ACPs with a 100% PE core; the following responses focus on matters associated with this product type.
Response to the Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Australian government implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of Polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency.
Response — Not Supported
Ban on Importation
The introduction of border controls to restrict importation of aluminium composite panels with a 100 per cent polyethylene core (PE-ACPs) is not supported by the Australian Government, as it would be neither effective nor practical to implement such restrictions.
It would be impractical for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) and its operational arm, the Australian Border Force (ABF), to screen PE-ACPs for a number of reasons, including:
the ABF would not be able to reliably or accurately determine the polyethylene content of the ACP core without destructive testing methods and a product design standard;
ACPs can be imported as raw materials and non-finished forms, before undergoing further manufacturing processes domestically;
while the tariff system could be amended to specifically identify PE-ACPs, the tariff system could not differentiate goods intended to be used as building products from those used for other purposes (such as advertising). The ABF cannot determine the end use of a product at the border;
screening would impose a range of costs on industry and slow down clearance times for imported goods; and
screening would divert resources from enforcement of other border controls (i.e. asbestos, drugs and weapons).
PE-ACPs are suitable for use by Australian businesses in advertising signage and interior design. A ban on the importation of PE-ACPs would have unintended consequences for Australian businesses that currently use such fit for purpose products.
Further, PE-ACPs are not the only type of external wall component that could be considered combustible or hazardous if used in a non-compliant manner with the NCC, many of which are manufactured domestically. As such, the introduction of a ban on the importation of an individual product would not solve the issue of non-compliance with the NCC.
It is also important to note that Australia must act in a manner consistent with our international trade obligations; as such, relevant technical regulations and standards must not be more trade restrictive than necessary, and must not be applied discriminately (i.e. only to imports).
Ban on Sale and Use
The introduction of a ban on the sale and use of PE-ACPs is also not supported by the Australian Government.
The Australian Government and the SOG have acknowledged that the current regulatory framework places a significant burden on the end of the product supply chain (i.e. on the builder/installer and the building certifier/surveyor).5 However, a ban on the sale and use of PE-ACPs would place a disproportionate burden on the beginning of the supply chain, effectively penalising product manufacturers and suppliers rather than making the entire building supply chain more responsible for ensuring products are fit for purpose and used in compliance with the NCC.
A diagram outlining the building product supply chain is provided at Attachment F.
The Australian Government is of the view that the national measures currently being pursued by the BMF, through the work of the SOG, will effectively increase accountability of all participants across the building supply chain, and improve building product conformity and compliance with the NCC.
Manufacturers and suppliers are expected to undertake due diligence to ensure their products conform to Australian standards and regulations; however, beyond specifying the products design and intended purpose there is little within a manufacturers control to ensure these product are installed in compliance with building regulations.
Should manufacturers present false information or make misleading representations about building products or their suitability for use, reforms to state and territory building and construction regulations would assist with addressing the problem. This may include the extension and harmonisation of the powers of building regulators nationally. The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is a broad principles based framework with strong general prohibitions against misleading conduct and misrepresentations in trade and commerce. Given the specialist nature of building products and usage as well as the specialist regulation of the sector, the Government considers more specific protections are needed in State and Territory building regulations.
The recent legislative reform in Queensland around the chain of responsibility for non-conforming building products is a positive step forward.
As stated above, on 6 October 2017, the BMF agreed to address inappropriate advertising and labelling of PE-ACPs utilising available laws and powers, and to ask the CAF to create a national information standard for these products. This request will be considered by CAF.
Recommendation 2
The Commonwealth government work with state and territory governments to establish a national licensing scheme, with requirements for continued professional development for all building practitioners.
Response — Noted
The Australian Government notes this recommendation, and is supportive of measures to support mobility and alignment of regulation across jurisdictions, however occupational licensing is the responsibility of states and territories.
A consistent occupational licensing scheme across jurisdictions has been previously considered by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Commonwealth moved away from national licensing in 2013 when COAG announced that occupational licensing would remain a state and territory matter which would be addressed through the Council for the Australian Federation. This decision followed extensive state−based consultation, after which the majority of states decided not to pursue the proposed National Occupational Licensing Scheme (NOLS) reform.
The BMF Assessment is expected to consider licensing and accreditation of building practitioners and related professionals, among other matters.
The outcome of the BMF Assessment will be to establish a national best practice model for compliance and enforcement for building and construction, to improve the compliance and safety of Australian buildings. As such, the findings of the BMF Assessment may inform the case for change, and potential options for government intervention.
Recommendation 3
The Building Ministers ' Forum give further consideration to introducing nationally consistent measures to increase accountability for participants across the supply chain.
Response — Supported
The Australian Government supports this recommendation, noting that the state and territory governments have the constitutional authority for the regulatory framework that governs the built environment.
Through the BMF and the SOG, the Australian Government has been working with the states and territories to improve accountability across the building supply chain. The Queensland Government has recently passed an amendment to their building legislation, the Building and Construction Legislation (Non-conforming Building Products—Chain of Responsibility and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2017 is an example of how jurisdictions can improve regulatory oversight of the building product supply chain.
The purpose of the Queensland legislation is to, among other matters:
confer responsibilities on the building product supply chain to ensure building products, so far as reasonably practicable, conform to mandatory standards;
expand the obligations of building practitioners (licensee's) to notify the Queensland building regulator of work health and safety issues; and
widen grounds for the Queensland building regulator to take disciplinary action against licensees.
Queensland's legislation is based on principles agreed by the BMF, and is intended to be used by other jurisdictions as a model to be either adopted in full or revisited as appropriate to accommodate their existing regulatory structure.
While some of the powers and enforcement measures contained in Queensland legislation may already exist in other jurisdictions, the legislation can be a 'best practice' approach to impose consistent obligations on participants of the building product supply chain and improve jurisdictional ability to detect and address non-conforming building products.
The New South Wales (NSW) Government has also recently announced it intends to reform the legislation governing building certification systems in NSW, to improve the requirements relating to the accreditation, investigation, auditing and disciplining of certifying authorities.
The NSW Government intends to replace the existing legislation with a new Building and Development Certifiers Act, and will release a draft exposure Bill for public comment in late 2017.
The BMF Assessment will provide recommendations for a national best practice model for the administration of building compliance and enforcement regulations.
Recommendation 4
That the Commonwealth government consider making all Australian Standards and codes freely available.
Response — Supports in Principle
The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle.
Access to the NCC
The Australian Government notes that the BMF, in May 2014, decided to make the NCC available free online.
This decision has dramatically increased the number of practitioners accessing the NCC, with users increasing from 11,000 (when the NCC was printed and sold) to 160,000 (when the NCC was made free online as a PDF).
The ABCB is also simplifying the design and language of the NCC to make it easier to understand by a wider audience.
To implement this decision, the Australian Government and state and territory governments increased their collective contributions to the operations of the ABCB and the ABCB Office, via the IGA. As such, while the NCC has been made available free online, its development and maintenance is still paid for by all governments.
Access to Australian Standards
The Australian Government notes that standards are voluntary unless referenced in legislation. It is estimated that one-third of some 7,000 Australian Standards are referenced in legislation, with the majority referenced in state and territory regulation.
Australian Standards must be purchased from commercial distributor SAI Global. Under a Publishing and Licencing Agreement (PLA) with Standards Australia, SAI Global has the exclusive right to distribute Australian Standards until December 2018, with an option for a further five years through to 2023. The Australian Government is not a party to the PLA.
It is also noted that Australian Standards that are made freely available still have to be paid for and that the cost of doing so will be borne by either the taxpayer or the consumer.
It should be noted that whilst the Standards that are referenced in the NCC are not available for free, the mandatory requirements of the NCC can often be satisfied through solutions that do not necessarily rely on the purchase of a Standard. In other words, whilst the NCC references standards, it does not mandate their use.
Ensuring reasonable public access to Australian Standards is fundamental to the reliability of products and services in the economy. Improving access to standards requires the support of Standards Australia and SAI Global in facilitating greater flexibility and cost options available to government.
In July 2017, the COAG Industry and Skills Council (CISC) established a Standards Accessibility Working Group tasked with investigating options for improving standards accessibility. The working group will report back to the CISC by 31 January 2018.
Finally, access to Australian Standards via the National Library of Australia and the state and territory libraries, was restored for private research and study purposes until February 2019.
Recommendation 5
The Commonwealth government consider imposing a penalties regime for non-compliance with the NCC such as revocation of accreditation or a ban from tendering for Commonwealth funded construction work and substantial financial penalties.
Response — Noted
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Penalties regime
It is important to note that the State and Territory governments have responsibility for regulating building and construction activities in their respective jurisdictions, which includes penalising non-compliance with the NCC.
There are constitutional limitations on the extent to which the Australian Government could regulate matters that the NCC deals with.
The BMF has commissioned an expert assessment to consider the broad compliance and enforcement problems within the State and Territory regulatory systems.
The BMF Assessment is not limited to considering the enforcement and penalty regimes of each state and territory. Rather the BMF Assessment is considering the systemic issues causing non-compliance and the compliance monitoring capability of jurisdictions to detect and respond to identified non-compliance. As such, the outcome of the Assessment is expected to inform how jurisdictions can improve both compliance monitoring and enforcement practices across Australia.
Revocation of accreditation / ban from tendering for Commonwealth funded construction
Under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, the Federal Safety Commissioner administers the Building and Construction Workplace Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme (the WHS Accreditation Scheme).
Under the WHS Accreditation Scheme only builders accredited by the Federal Safety Commissioner can enter into head contracts for building work that is funded directly or indirectly by the Australian Government, subject to certain financial thresholds.
As such, the WHS Accreditation Scheme enables the Australian Government to use its market influence, as a client and provider of capital, to improve WHS across the building and construction industry.
The Australian Government notes the Federal Safety Commissioner made the compliance of building products with the Performance Requirements of the NCC a condition of accreditation in January 2017. The Federal Safety Commission has the power to suspend or revoke the WHS accreditation of companies that fail to meet the NCC's Performance Requirements. This creates a major commercial imperative for compliance amongst those companies seeking to access Commonwealth funded construction projects.
Recommendation 6
The Commonwealth government ensure the Federal Safety Commissioner is adequately resourced to ensure the office is able to carry out its duties in line with the new audit function and projected work flow.
Response — Noted
The Federal Safety Commissioner is adequately resourced to carry out its functions.
Recommendation 7
The Commonwealth government ' s decision to give further consideration to Director Identification Numbers and recommends that it expedites this process in order to prevent directors from engaging in illegal phoenix activity.
Response — Supported
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
It is acknowledged that the interim report was released just prior to the Government's announcement of a comprehensive package of reforms to address illegal phoenixing.
The Government's package of reforms includes the introduction of a Director Identification Number (DIN) and a range of other measures to both deter and penalise phoenix activity. The DIN will identify directors with a unique number, which will interface with other government agencies and databases to allow regulators to map the relationships between individuals and entities and individuals and other people.
Recommendation 8
That state and territory government ' s work together to develop a nationally consistent statutory duty of care protection for end users in the residential strata sector.
Response — Noted
The Australian Government notes this recommendation and agrees in-principle with its intent.
The Government notes that the Committee made this recommendation drawing heavily on the submission of the Owners Corporation, following the High Court of Australia's 2014 decision in Brookfield Multiplex Limited v The Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288. 6
In essence, the High Court held that the builder of a strata-title apartment complex did not owe a duty of care to the Owners Corporation from latent defects in the common property.
The regulation of strata and common property title is the responsibility of state and territory governments. However, as per the High Court's decision, a duty of care under common law cannot be assumed for strata owners who buy a property that turns out to be defective.
The Government believes that if nationally consistent legal protection for end users of residential strata is to be considered, the most appropriate mechanism is through legislative reform of existing state and territory strata laws.
In addition, the findings and recommendations to be tabled in the final report of the Shergold and Weir assessment of the broader compliance and enforcement problems within the building and construction systems, would be valuable in guiding any such reforms.
1 Interim Report, pp. 41.
2 Type A construction is the most fire-resistant, and applies to class 2, 3 and 9 buildings of three or more storeys; and class 5, 6, 7, and 8 of four or more storeys.
3 Type B construction is the next most fire-resistant, and applies to class 2, 3 and 9 buildings of two or more storeys; and class 5, 6, 7, and 8 of three or more storeys.
4 NCC, Volume 1, Clause C1.12
5 Senior Officers' Group, Strategies to address risks related to non-conforming building products, pp. 14, February 2016
6 [2014] HCA 36
Attachments are available from the Senate Table Office.
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:22): I move:
That the Senate take note of the government response to the Senate Economics References Committee interim report on cladding.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:23): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:24): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018 and move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018
The Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018 amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide for the collection of a nomination training contribution charge from employers nominating overseas skilled workers.
This measure is a critical element of the Government's employer sponsored skilled migration reforms, which ensure that Australian workers have priority for jobs in this country.
I now turn to examine the Bill in more detail.
Concurrent with the introduction of the Temporary Skill Shortage visa, the Government is introducing a nomination training contribution charge, to be known as the Skilling Australians Fund levy.
The purpose of the Skilling Australians Fund levy is to require employers seeking to access overseas skilled workers to contribute to the broader skills development of Australians.
From March 2018, it is intended that the Skilling Australians Fund levy will be payable by employers nominating workers for the:
Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa;
Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) (subclass 186) visa; and
Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) (subclass 187) visa.
The Skilling Australians Fund levy will replace the current training benchmark requirement, reducing the regulatory burden on employers and providing improved training outcomes for Australians.
Since 2009, employers sponsoring an overseas worker for a Subclass 457 visa have been required to demonstrate expenditure of at least one per cent of their business' payroll annually on the training of Australians, or alternatively, pay an amount equivalent to two per cent of their business' payroll into an industry training fund.
This system is overly complex and lacks transparency.
The Skilling Australians Fund levy will fully replace these training benchmark arrangements.
The creation of the Skilling Australians Fund aligns with recommendations by the 2014 Azarias Review of the Integrity of the Subclass 457 Program, and the 2016 Senate Inquiry into the exploitation of temporary workers in Australia (Temporary Worker Senate Inquiry).
The Skilling Australians Fund levy will offset expenditure from the Skilling Australians Fund, a training fund administered by the Department of Education and Training (DET), to support the skills development of Australians.
The levy is expected to generate $1.2 billion revenue for the training of Australians over the forward estimates.
As the levy will not be charged until March 2018, the Government will provide an additional $261.2 million in 2017-18 to the Skilling Australians Fund.
From 2018-19 onwards, the Skilling Australians Fund will funded by revenue raised from the levy.
The establishment of the Skilling Australians Fund will create a direct link between skilled migration and the training of Australians.
The Government is committed to skilling Australians so they can get jobs at all levels and occupations across the Australian economy. With matched funding from the states and territories, the Skilling Australians Fund will support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees, and pre- and higher-level apprenticeships and traineeships.
Spending from the Skilling Australians Fund will be prioritised towards projects brought forward from states and territory governments which support training in key areas, including:
occupations in demand
occupations with a reliance on foreign workers
industries and sectors of future growth
trade apprenticeships
rural and regional areas
people from targeted cohorts, and
industries experiencing structural adjustment.
All project proposals will need to demonstrate engagement with, and support from, employers and industry.
This represents a significant Government commitment to ensure Australians can gain the skills to fill Australian jobs and succeed in a valuable career.
Employers will be charged the Skilling Australians Fund levy for each overseas worker nominated to fill a vacancy in Australia.
The amount of the levy will depend on the size of the business and the type and duration of the visa that the worker is nominated for.
It is intended that small businesses, those with annual turnover of less than $10 million, will be required to pay:
$1200 per year for each temporary overseas worker
a one off Skilling Australians Fund levy of $3000 for each permanent overseas worker
Businesses with an annual turnover of $10 million dollars or more will be required to pay:
$1800 per year for each temporary overseas worker
a one off payment of $5000 for each permanent overseas worker
While the Skilling Australians Fund levy will vary depending on the size of the business and the intended length of stay of the overseas worker, it is in the order of magnitude of $4000 per worker recommended by the Temporary Worker Senate Inquiry.
The Skilling Australians Fund levy for the entire proposed period that the temporary worker intends to work in Australia will be collected at the time the employer nominates the overseas worker for sponsorship.
There will be no levy exemptions, reflecting the policy intent that employers seeking to access overseas skilled workers contribute to the broader skills development of Australians.
However, the Skilling Australians Fund levy will be tax deductible, and it will not be applied retrospectively —employers will not be liable to pay a levy for existing overseas workers unless the worker is nominated by that business for a new visa.
It is intended that refunds of the Skilling Australians Fund levy will be available in certain circumstances, such as where an employer's sponsorship application is refused.
The Bill also includes amendments which will improve the visa application process.
Specifically, the Bill amends the Act to formalise the current practice of accepting nominations for temporary overseas skilled workers by
businesses that have applied to be a sponsor or entered into negotiations for a work agreement,
rather than waiting for the outcome of that process.
These amendments will result in improved efficiency for both employers and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
The Bill also amends the Act to provide that the Minister may prescribe the manner in which labour market testing (LMT) must be conducted.
The Act requires that evidence of LMT must be provided with a nomination by a standard business sponsor unless:
an exemption applies due to a major disaster;
an exemption applies on the basis of the required skill level and occupation for a nominated position; or
it would be inconsistent with Australia's international trade obligations.
The Bill amends the Act to provide that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the manner in which labour market testing in relation to a nominated position must be
undertaken and may determine the kinds of evidence of LMT that must accompany a nomination.
The matters to be prescribed in an instrument are expected to include the language in which a job advertisement must be written, the method of advertisement, the period the advertisement occurs in, and the period the advertisement must run for.
This Bill will ensure a uniform approach to LMT from employers seeking to access an overseas worker.
It will also ensure that the quality of the LMT being conducted is properly assessed.
This amendment will help ensure that, where LMT is required, businesses properly test the labour market before nominating an overseas worker for a prescribed visa and provide evidence of that LMT.
The Skilling Australians Fund is a further demonstration of the Government's commitment to Australian businesses and workers.
It will support targeted investment in critical skill needs in key regions and industries in the economy.
The administration of the Skilling Australians Fund levy will also increase the transparency and accountability of training contributions made by employers utilising the skilled migration program.
This will increase public confidence that skilled migration, and the businesses that bring in skilled migrants, are doing their part to help Australians prepare for the workforce.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017
The Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 imposes the nomination training contribution charge, as payable under new section 140ZM of the Migration Act.
This charge is to be known as the Skilling Australians Fund (SAF) levy.
The Bill is a complementary measure to the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, which amends the Migration Act to provide for the collection of the SAF levy.
The Bill provides that the amount of the SAF levy is the charge set in the Regulations.
The Bill also provides that the SAF levy must not exceed the charge limit.
The charge limit in the financial year beginning on 1 July 2017 is $8000 for a nomination relating to a temporary visa, and $5,500 for a nomination relating to a permanent visa.
In subsequent financial years the charge limit will be indexed by reference to the Consumer Price Index.
This charge limit provides flexibility for the Australian Government to make increases to the SAF levy in future while providing certainty for business as to the limited scope for a potential increase.
For temporary visas, the intention is that the SAF levy payable will be calculated according to the number of years, or part thereof, set out in the nomination.
The charge limit for temporary visas is therefore calculated with reference to the SAF levy for a large business, $1800 for each year of nomination, for a total of 4 years.
Debate adjourned.
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017
Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018
Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:25): These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:26): I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 and the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018 and I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY CHEMICALS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY) BILL 2017
Agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines—or agvet chemicals—are essential to our quality of life. We all know that these chemicals protect our crops and animals from pests and diseases, and underpin the productivity and competitiveness of Australia's farmers. However, agvet chemicals also have a range of other uses, including protecting our health, managing domestic pests and fulfilling consumer needs. Agvet chemicals are used to control vermin and pests in food premises, kill flies and mosquitoes around our houses, preserve timber, control fouling of boat hulls and keep our swimming pools safe. These chemicals are also vital for keeping our pets healthy and protecting our environment from invasive weeds and animals. The regulation of safe and effective agvet chemicals is therefore of interest to all Australians.
Through a cooperative scheme with the states and territories, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—the APVMA—is the national regulator of agvet chemicals. The APVMA ensures that agvet chemicals used in Australia are safe for people, animals, plants and the environment.
Legislation underpinning the APVMA and agvet chemical regulation was developed in the early 1990s. A detailed review of the whole legislative framework is overdue. The government announced in April that it would undertake such a review and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is currently developing terms of reference for this important piece of work.
In the meantime, the chemical industry has made it clear that there are simple, non-controversial changes that could be done now that improve the efficiency of the regulator and increase the speed to which farmers can get access to safe effective chemicals. We are heeding these calls.
The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017 amends agvet chemical legislation to streamline industry reporting and support the operational efficiency of the APVMA. The Bill also clarifies some ambiguities in the legislation and removes unnecessary and redundant provisions.
This Bill reduces some of the unnecessary regulatory burden on industry by simplifying reporting requirements for chemical products. The amendments in the Bill ensure that industry continues to provide necessary information about registered chemicals in the marketplace but reduces the time and effort that industry require to collect this information.
Essentially, the Bill removes the need for industry to undertake two unrelated reporting activities—one for levies, based on chemical product sales, and a more complex reporting activity on active constituent quantities. It simplifies and aligns these reporting processes based on the quantity and value of product sales. This significantly reduces reporting costs for industry without compromising the availability of information for our international reporting obligations and policy development needs. The chemical industry has been seeking changes to the burdensome reporting requirements and the Bill delivers these changes.
The role of the regulator is to ensure that the safe agvet chemicals we need are available in a timely fashion. The Bill therefore includes measures to improve the administrative efficiency of the APVMA and promote quicker access to chemical products. The measures in the Bill reduce the handling time for applications by increasing the APVMA's flexibility when dealing with errors in applications and for altering applications.
Other measures in the Bill enable the holder of a label approval to vary a label approval while this approval is suspended. This removes an administrative barrier that currently prevents the holder from addressing the reasons for the suspension. This will ensure that the issue with a label approval that led to its suspension can be appropriately rectified at the holder's request.
To perform its role as a regulator the APVMA has to rely on information provided to it by applicants. The Bill includes civil penalty provisions for providing false or misleading information. These provisions provide a broader suite of sanctions than currently available to the APVMA for dealing with any false or misleading information that may be provided to it. This is important as it will provide the APVMA with the necessary tools to proportionately respond to any false or misleading information it receives. Industry understands the importance of increasing the range of compliance options available to the APVMA.
Further measures in the Bill clarify the meaning of the expiry date for a chemical product and allow applicants to address minor errors identified during preliminary assessment of an application, without having to go through the whole application process again.
Stakeholders have confirmed that the Bill will deliver tangible benefits to industry and the regulator.
Collectively, the measures in the Bill will reduce regulatory burden on industry and allow the regulator to be more efficient, while ensuring safe and effective agvet chemicals continue to be available to the community.
The government will continue to work with industry to implement further improvements to agvet chemicals regulation through future legislation and administrative reform.
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL CRIME COOPERATION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2018
The Government is committed to ensuring Australia's criminal justice framework is as strong as it can be—striking the right balance between protecting fundamental rights while ensuring justice is served. We are committed to ensuring our law enforcement and justice agencies have the requisite powers to appropriately contribute to the fight against crime at home and abroad.
To that end, we keep our criminal justice framework under constant review—our agencies, policies, laws and processes—to ensure that we have a regime in place that is well equipped for the job of tackling crime.
The Bill about which I speak today—the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018—is an another example of our efforts in this respect. It is a comprehensive Bill—eleven schedules in length—which contains a range of measures that will strengthen the Commonwealth's already robust criminal justice arrangements.
The Bill will enhance Australia's position globally in the fight against crime, making improvements to our international crime cooperation arrangements and our ability to assist international courts and tribunals.
It will make amendments to the Commonwealth's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to both strengthen that regime and make reporting requirements within it more flexible.
It will amend the AusCheck Act to bolster the government's ability to address serious risks, such as national security and safety risks, related to large-scale events of a national character.
The Bill will also enhance the Commonwealth's anti-human trafficking and slavery regime and the protections afforded to vulnerable witnesses within our criminal justice system.
The Bill will make minor amendments to streamline the annual reporting processes under the War Crimes Act.
The Bill also contains minor consequential amendments to facilitate the use of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission as an alternative name for the Australian Crime Commission.
The Bill also enhances the Australian Federal Police's drug and alcohol testing arrangements, enabling it to maintain the integrity of its entire workforce and enforce its zero-tolerance policy regarding illicit drug taking. It also provides the AFP Commissioner with the power to approve an extension to defer resignation in cases of serious misconduct or corruption. The Government amendments moved in the House of Representatives relating to these measures strike the appropriate balance between transparency and fairness, and legitimate law enforcement integrity measures.
I don't propose elaborating in detail on all of the measures I have just outlined that are contained in the Bill. I would, however, like to draw attention to some of the more significant measures.
International crime cooperation measures
As many of us here appreciate, international crime cooperation is an essential part of fighting crime in Australia and across the world.
Australia needs to ensure that criminals cannot evade prosecution or profit from crime because the evidence or proceeds of their crimes are in different countries, or because they can move easily across borders.
Amendments in the Bill will ensure Australia can respond effectively to requests for assistance from foreign countries and international bodies, in accordance with our international obligations. They will also ensure that the rules on adducing foreign material in Australian proceedings apply consistently throughout Australia. The amendments have been identified from practical experience and will provide certainty in the operation of key provisions.
Specifically, the Bill will enhance Australia's ability to assist international courts and tribunals. These bodies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, including the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The Bill will align the assistance Australia can provide to the International Criminal Court and international war crimes tribunals with the assistance we can provide in
criminal matters to foreign countries. Australia's authority to provide assistance to these bodies is currently more limited than our capacity to assist foreign countries. The Bill will permit forensic procedures, surveillance activities and telecommunications information to the international bodies.
The assistance would be subject to the same processes that currently apply to the assistance provided to foreign countries and to similar safeguards that apply to the use of these powers for foreign and domestic law enforcement purposes.
The Bill will also amend Australia's mutual assistance regime, to enhance the assistance that Australia can provide in response to a mutual assistance request from a foreign country in a criminal matter.
These amendments will ensure that proceeds of crime investigative tools in the Mutual Assistance Act align with those in the Proceeds of Crime Act. They will also modify provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act appropriately for the foreign context.
The amendments will also clarify the types of foreign proceeds of crime orders for which mutual assistance can be provided and confirm that the Mutual Assistance
Act applies to interim foreign proceeds of crime orders that are issued by non-judicial government bodies.
The Bill will also amend the Extradition Act to ensure that judicial officers and relevant courts have sufficient powers to order the remand of a person in an appropriate facility to await extradition following a surrender decision. This will improve the operation of the extradition process and assist Australia to meet its international extradition obligations.
Finally, the Bill will also make amendments to the Foreign Evidence Act. These amendments will ensure consistent application of the rules relating to foreign evidence throughout Australia.
They will provide a process to certify material received from a foreign country in response to a mutual assistance request in terrorism-related proceedings. This will ensure that the certification is prima facie evidence of the fact of such receipt.
Vulnerable witness protections
I would also like to highlight the Bill's proposed enhancements to the Commonwealth's existing vulnerable witness protections.
The Government is committed to supporting and protecting vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in Commonwealth criminal proceedings.
The amendments will ensure the existing offence of identifying child witnesses or vulnerable adult complainants also extends to child complainants.
The Bill will also amend relevant legislation to clarify that the protections afforded to vulnerable witnesses apply to future criminal proceedings, regardless of when the alleged offence occurred.
In relation to the Commonwealth's human trafficking and slavery offences, the Bill seeks to broaden the definition of 'debt bondage'. It will also expand the relevant evidence that may be taken into account in determining elements of human trafficking and slavery-related offences.
Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing amendments
In respect of the Commonwealth's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing framework, the Bill makes several amendments. Firstly, to allow travellers departing Australia to electronically report cross-border movements of physical currency—currently, travellers who are carrying $10,000 or more in cash
must provide a written report at a specific time and point. The proposed amendments will maintain existing reporting requirements, but provide the necessary flexibility to ensure that a new digital form can also be used.
The Bill will also list the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission—the ACNC—as a designated agency under the AML/CTF Act. This will enable the ACNC to access financial intelligence information to assess money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with charities that register with the ACNC. In turn, this will enable the ACNC to better detect, monitor and halt money laundering, terrorist financing and other criminal activities involving ACNC-registered entities.
AusCheck Act amendments
Finally. I would like to mention the AusCheck Act amendments.
These will enable AusCheck, a business unit within the Department of Home Affairs, to conduct and coordinate background checks in relation to major national events such as the Invictus Games.
These amendments will enable the government to prevent persons who pose serious risks, such as persons of national security concern, from working or volunteering at major national events and contributing to serious incidents.
The amendments will provide the responsible Minister with a power to declare a major national event by legislative instrument. They also permit regulations to be made in relation to the conduct and coordination of background checks for a major national event.
The term 'major national event' is intended to capture a type of event that is of such a large scale and national character that it would benefit from the coordination of security and other arrangements by the Commonwealth. Some examples of events that, if held in Australia, could be characterised as major national events include the Invictus Games, the G20, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting and major international sporting events. In declaring an event as a major national event the responsible Minister must be satisfied that it is in the national interest that the Commonwealth be involved in the conduct and coordination of background checks in connection with the accreditation of individuals in relation to the event.
Using the established AusCheck scheme for these purposes will ensure that the background checks can be facilitated through established mechanisms, which are well supported by technical channels and legal frameworks.
Conclusion
Australia's criminal justice framework is both fair and strong. But it never serves to be complacent. Where opportunities present to fine-tune aspects of our regime, we take these up. This Bill is another example of just that.
FAMILY ASSISTANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PROTECTING CHILDREN) BILL 2018
The Turnbull Government is committed to supporting families and protecting the health and wellbeing of all children. The Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill2017 acts on this commitment by improving the child support scheme to ensure it operates in the best interests of Australian children, and strengthening incentives for families to immunise their children.
Schedule 1 - Child support amendments
Schedule 1 of this Bill introduces a range of improvements to the child support scheme, which supports more than 1.3 million separated parents and 1.1 million children, to ensure that it is operating in the best interests of Australia's children. This will help separated parents to understand and meet their responsibilities for the costs of raising their children, in line with their individual capacity to do so.
The changes address the three priority recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report – Fromconflicttocooperation:InquiryintotheChildSupportProgram.These are areas where the current policy was identified as leading to outcomes that are inconsistent with the objectives of the child support program, or required parents to undertake onerous court or administrative processes. The Government committed $12.4 million in the 2017-18 Budget towards implementing its response to these three priority areas.
Part 1 of Schedule 1 of this Bill amends the child support and family assistance legislation to provide better outcomes for parents in dispute about their children's care arrangements, addressing Recommendation 8 of the Inquiry report.
From the day after this Bill receives Royal Assent, the 14-week interim period that applies before child support and Family Tax Benefit (FTB) are recalculated to reflect a change in actual care will be extended to up to 52 weeks if the disputed care change occurs within the first year of a court order. For older court orders, the interim period will be extended to up to 26 weeks if the person with increased care does not take reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution.
This extension of the interim period strengthens the incentive for parents to comply with court orders and appropriately discourages parents from withholding the care of a child from another parent or carer where that particular care arrangement has been ordered by a court to be in the best interests of the child.
For care arrangements in a non-enforceable written agreement or parenting plan, the interim period will remain at 14 weeks where the disputed care change occurs in the first year after the agreement or plan is made. For older agreements or plans, where the person with increased care participates in family dispute resolution, a shortened four-week interim period will apply.
These amendments to the interim period provisions are designed to strengthen incentives to comply with court orders or participate in dispute resolution processes about care, which is in the best interests of the children.
Part 2 of Schedule 1 of this Bill will amend child support legislation to allow amended tax assessments to be taken into account for child support purposes in a broader range of circumstances in line with Recommendation 12 of the Child Support Inquiry report.
From the day after this Bill receives Royal Assent, an amended tax return will always be taken into account in a child support assessment if it results in a higher taxable income. This means parents won't be disadvantaged if the other parent has understated their income, no matter how long it takes for them to correct their original tax return.
An amended tax return that results in a lower taxable income will be used where a change in child support is sought within 28 days of receiving their original tax return, within 28 days of becoming aware of an error or if special circumstances apply.
These amendments will allow a parent's true taxable income to be more easily reflected in their child support assessment, without having to estimate their income or apply through the Change of Assessment process, and will also help to ensure that separated parents are taking responsibility for the costs of raising their child in line with their capacity to do so.
Part 3 of Schedule 1 of this Bill amends child support legislation to make it easier and simpler to set aside child support agreements in certain circumstances, also in response to Recommendation 12 of the Committee's report.
From 1 July 2018, to provide greater fairness to parents who entered into agreements prior to 1 July 2008 (known as transitional binding agreements), the Government is introducing a separate and less restrictive test for a court to set aside the agreement where one of the parties did not obtain legal advice.
In addition, for all child support agreements, this Bill introduces provisions that will terminate or suspend the effect of the agreement from 1 July 2018, if the person who is entitled to child support for a child under the agreement ceases to be an eligible carer of the child – that is, where the person's percentage of care for a child falls below 35 per cent.
The two policy changes in response to Recommendation 12 will enable changes in circumstances to be more easily reflected in child support assessments without parents having to go to court or through onerous administrative processes, both improving and simplifying the child support scheme to better support families.
Part 4 of Schedule 1 of this Bill amends child support legislation to create greater equity in the collection of child support debts and overpayments. These amendments, to apply from 1 July 2018, are being made in response to Recommendation 22 of the Committee's report.
The Government is expanding the methods available to recover a child support overpayment from a payee, to align with the current methods available for recovering child support debts from payers. The Government is also expanding the basis upon which an overpayment is recoverable to ensure that all backdated reductions to a child support assessment, which had previously been collected by the Department of Human Services (DHS) on behalf of the payee, will be recoverable by DHS. However, new backdating provisions will provide a fairer basis for retrospectively creating a child support overpayment or arrears.
Overall, the policy changes in Schedule 1 will help to ensure correct outcomes and improve the administration in around 90,000 -100,000 child support cases each year.
Schedule 2: Family Tax Benefit Amendments
The Turnbull Government is also committed to helping more Australian children become immunised. Since the Government introduced the No Jab, No Pay policy on 1 January 2016, national immunisation rates have increased across all three target groups of one, two and five year olds, and more than 238,000 children and their families have taken action to ensure that their children now meet the immunisation requirements.
Immunisation coverage rates for one and five year olds have reached more than 93 per cent (as at September 2017). This is nearing the critical level of 95 per cent to provide what's known as herd immunity – when large numbers of individuals are immune to disease and chains of infection are disrupted, stopping or slowing the disease. This is vital to protecting children and the wider community, particularly young babies who are not yet fully immunised and other people who cannot be vaccinated from preventable diseases, such as whooping cough.
As part of the 2017-18 Budget, the Government provided $14.1 million over four years for ongoing catch-up vaccines for almost 375,000 Australians aged 10 to 19 years, and more than 8,000 adult refugees and humanitarian entrants.
The Government has also provided $5.5 million over three years to encourage Australian parents and carers to vaccinate their children. The campaign will specifically target areas of low vaccination rates by addressing myths and misconceptions, while explaining the benefits of childhood vaccinations for both the individual and the community.
Schedule 2 of this Bill will strengthen current immunisations incentive measures to ensure that from 1 July 2018, children must meet immunisation and health check requirements as a prerequisite for families to be eligible for their full fortnightly entitlement to Family Tax Benefit Part A.
Currently the No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School policies link the Family Tax Benefit Part A end of year supplement for each child to meeting immunisation and health check requirements. The new measure will replace this incentive and serve as an immediate and constant reminder for parents to immunise their children and access a health check for their four year old children on time. The new measure will also ensure that all Family Tax Benefit families, irrespective of income, continue to have a clear financial incentive to immunise their children.
Under the new rules, if a child does not meet the immunisation or health check requirements, their fortnightly Family Tax Benefit Part A will be reduced by around $28 per fortnight. Over the course of a year, this is the same value as the current end of year supplement.
Should a child not meet their immunisation requirements, families will have 63 days to meet the immunisation requirements. This grace period gives parents enough time to comply with the immunisation requirements even if they experience a delay in vaccinating their child, for example, due to illness. It also aligns with the 63 day grace period provision to meet immunisation requirements to receive child care payments.
This Bill also makes technical amendments to the NewTaxSystem(FamilyAssistance)Act1999 (the Act) in regards to immunisation requirements, including:
medical exemption provisions in relation to the approved form and manner in which an application for a medical exemption from immunisation requirements may be made. This change will further enhance the integrity of the measure and help ensure that only legitimate cases qualify for an exemption; and
to ensure that immunisation requirements for Family Tax Benefit Part A continue to apply after the introduction of the Turnbull Government's Child Care Subsidy on 2 July 2018. This change demonstrates the Government's commitment to the removal of any possible loopholes or opportunities for groups and individuals to compromise the continued success of its immunisation measures.
The Government considers there is no excuse for parents who, for no valid medical reason, choose not to immunise their children. These parents are not only putting their own children's health at risk, but the health of every other person's children at risk as well.
Parents will still have the right not to vaccinate their child. But a family's choice not to immunise their children is not supported by this Government. Nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of family payments.
If that's the choice they make, they are putting their child and the community at risk of infectious diseases, and they will no longer be eligible to receive their full fortnightly Family Tax Benefit Part A payment.
This Bill also makes a further technical amendment to the Actto ensure that from 1 July 2018, the Family Tax Benefit Part A income test applies as intended to all recipients subject to an income support employment income nil rate period.
Conclusion
This Bill prioritises the protection of Australian children and I commend the Bill.
FINANCIAL SECTOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CRISIS RESOLUTION POWERS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2017
There are few greater threats to the economic wellbeing of the Australian people than a financial crisis. Financial crises have the ability to devastate an economy, leading to mass unemployment and plunging asset prices. In a crisis, credit markets may seize up, meaning no loans for home buyers or small businesses. This would have a severe effect on the wellbeing of ordinary Australians.
Today, the Turnbull Government is putting in place a far-sighted framework to protect Australians against an uncontrolled financial collapse in the future.
Australia has avoided a severe financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and has not experienced a recession for more than 26 years. While good fortune played its part in those outcomes, it can mostly be attributed to prudent economic management, in particular of our financial system during the most recent world economic crisis. The strong budget surpluses accumulated by the Howard Government had paid off debt, ensuring we had the firepower on the Commonwealth balance sheet to navigate the crisis.
Even more importantly, Treasurer Costello implemented reforms recommended by the Wallis Financial System Inquiry, establishing the twin peaks system of our financial regulation. This forward thinking structure proved to be world's best practice during the crisis – we had a prudential regulator in APRA that shepherded our major financial institutions away from the worst excesses that we saw overseas. APRA's excellent supervision and robust capital requirements meant Australian institutions navigated the crisis relatively unscathed. In short, the Howard Government and Treasurer Costello in particular, took the tough decisions during the 'good times' which meant the Australian economy survived the 'bad times'.
The Turnbull Government is taking the same approach. Prudent fiscal management is working to repair the budget.
We are also responding to the Murray Inquiry into our financial system, established after the Coalition took office in 2013. The Murray Inquiry followed in the footsteps of the Wallis Inquiry, making key recommendations to enhance the stability of the Australian financial system. In July, the Government welcomed APRA's initiative to ensure that capital levels at Australian banks are 'unquestionably strong', in response to the first recommendation of the Murray Inquiry.
The Government will continue to support APRA's efforts to ensure that the Australian financial system is resilient. The resilience of the financial system is the first line of defence against financial crises.
The Murray Inquiry also recommended that Government implement appropriate crisis management powers over banks and insurers. This Bill does just that.
These powers will ensure that APRA can effectively prepare for and manage a crisis should it befall one of our banks or insurers.
The prudent time to strengthen crisis resolution powers is when the financial system is healthy. As we've seen - you need to put the effort in during the good times to be ready for the difficult times. The Government has done the necessary heavy lifting, from the work of the Murray Inquiry through to the substantial volume of legislation I introduce today.
This Bill will significantly enhance APRA's crisis resolution powers.
There are two core themes for this Bill.
The first theme is enhancements to the resolution planning framework. Resolution planning refers to the process of banks and insurers working with APRA to ensure they are ready for stress events. APRA already puts considerable effort into resolution planning, but the legislative framework does not give APRA clear powers to make prudential standards for resolution. We are addressing this gap.
Done right, resolution planning will substantially reduce the cost to the taxpayer of a stress event. It leads to the best chance of a private sector solution, or an orderly resolution of the entity. Orderly resolutions reduce the risk of contagion leading to a runaway crisis of confidence in the institutions.
The second theme is resolution powers. Resolution powers are the financial system equivalent of a defence force. You never want to have to use them, but if you need to, you want them to be powerful and flexible.
Australia's powers are starting from a reasonable base. APRA can already take control of a failing bank or insurer when needed, and this Bill further enhances these powers. However, larger banks and insurers tend to be part of a complex financial group. Group entities will often house critical services, like staff or infrastructure. To ensure an effective resolution, APRA needs to be able to either direct or take control of all of these necessary group entities. This Bill makes amendments to the legislative framework to ensure that is the case.
International experience has shown that the role of directors and senior officers of a distressed institution is critical. A crisis can put these individuals in difficult legal circumstances, where the regulator's attempts to institute a resolution may conflict with 'peacetime' legal obligations. This Bill ensures that APRA's resolution actions should be considered paramount, and directors and senior officers will be protected when pursuing these directions in all reasonable circumstances.
This Bill also improves APRA's ability to manage a foreign bank branch or insurance branch that is in distress.
Large institutions also tend to have a wide ranging amount of complex legal arrangements with sophisticated counterparties. These arrangements often contain 'default' provisions which allow counterparties to break or 'close out' their position with the distressed institution. Regulators need to be able to 'stop the music' – in other words – to buy time to institute an effective resolution strategy. This Bill ensures that APRA is able to freeze the rights of counterparties of a financial group in appropriate circumstances to carve out the time necessary to effect a resolution. This is achieved in a way which preserves, to the extent possible, the certainty of counterparties when dealing with Australian banks and insurers.
This Bill makes a number of technical amendments that ensures the machinery of government operates as intended during a resolution event. This includes technical enhancements to the operation of the Financial Claims Scheme and the efficacy of the legal framework for the conversion of capital instruments under the Basel III frameworks. These mechanical fixes will increase efficiency and certainty in the event of a crisis.
Taken together, these themes represent a significant leap in APRA's capability as a resolution authority, accompanying its traditional core role as a prudential supervisor. They will ensure that Australia's regulatory infrastructure is in line with international best practice.
Whilst Government will continue to do everything in its power to avoid financial crises, we are taking the prudent step of safeguarding the system for the wellbeing of current and future generations.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION MEASURES BILL 2017
The Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017 makes two sets of amendments:
First, it amends the Telecommunications (Interception andAccess) Act1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act2004, to ensure that legislation supports a restructure of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Secondly, it extends the functions, powers and duties of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to the laws of Norfolk Island.
[Independent Commission Against Corruption (New South Wales)]
The Independent Commission Against Corruption plays a critical role investigating, exposing and preventing corruption in the public sector.
In November 2016, the New South Wales Parliament passed the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment Act2016. That Act restructured the Commission by replacing the former arrangement of a single Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner with a full‑time Chief Commissioner and two part‑time Commissioners. Assistant Commissioners may also be appointed as required.
The measures in the Bill will make minor amendments to both the Telecommunications (Interception andAccess) Act1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act2004, to ensure that the re‑structured Commission is referenced properly in those Acts.
The Act will retain the Commission's substantive powers under those Acts.
[Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]
The Telecommunications (Interception andAccess) Act1979 provides the legal framework for specified intelligence and law enforcement agencies to access communications and data for the investigation of criminal offences and other activities that threaten safety and security.
It permits eligible law enforcement and security agencies, including the Commission, to obtain warrants to intercept communications, to obtain warrants to access stored communications and to access telecommunications data, subject to stringent legal tests and independent oversight.
The Telecommunications (Interception andAccess) Act1979 vests certain positions within the Commission specific authority when undertaking functions. The Chief Commissioner will, for example, be able to authorise members of the Commission to receive information gathered under warrants and communicate intercepted information obtained by the Commission to other agencies in limited circumstances. The amendments will allow the Chief Commissioner, a Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner to be certifying officers under the Act. Certifying officers can, for example, be delegated the power to revoke interception and stored communication warrants, certify true copies of warrants and issue evidentiary certificates.
[Surveillance Devices Act 2004]
The Surveillance Devices Act2004 governs the use of optical surveillance devices, listening devices, data surveillance devices and tracking devices by law enforcement agencies. The Act complements the relevant surveillance devices laws of the states and territories by allowing law enforcement agencies such as the Commission to obtain surveillance device warrants to help investigate federal offences and state offences with a federal aspect.
The Surveillance Devices Act2004 vests certain positions within the Commission specific authority when undertaking functions under the Act. These provisions ensure that authorisations are valid and that persons authorised under the Act to undertake those functions can exercise their prescribed functions legally.
The Chief Commissioner will, for example have the power to revoke surveillance device warrants, and authorise executive level officers to be authorising officers. Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners will also be designated as authorising officers under the Bill. Authorising officers may, for example, issue emergency authorisations for the use of a surveillance device, authorise the use and retrieval of tracking devices without warrant in certain circumstances and issue evidentiary certificates.
[Conclusion]
This Bill will ensure that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption is able to continue its valuable work, and can access the investigative tools it needs to support its functions.
[Norfolk Island – Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983]
On 1 July 2015, the Australian Government took over responsibility for delivering local, state and Commonwealth services on Norfolk Island, which are proportionally equivalent to services which benefit mainland Australians.
As part of this process, it was important to review prosecution arrangements in order to align those services with those available on mainland Australia and other external territories.
The measures in the Bill will allow the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to take over prosecutorial and related functions in relation to the laws of Norfolk Island. This will ensure prosecutions against the laws of Norfolk Island are dealt with by a professional and independent prosecution services with significant expertise.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
COMMITTEES
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Mr Danby to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and Mr Alexander to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
BILLS
Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(a) notes key research findings from RMIT University that 1 in 5 Australians have experienced image-based abuse and 4 in 5 Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission;
(b) notes that in Australia there is a piecemeal legislative approach to image-based abuse, with no nationally consistent criminal laws, and that the harms associated with image based abuse warrant it being specifically classified as a criminal offence;
(c) notes that the Council of Australian Governments recommended that to clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so;
(d) notes that this Bill does not criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent; and
(e) with the exception of depictions of persons without attire of religious or cultural significance, calls on the Government to criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent."
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (18:27): Before my speech was interrupted, I was saying that my Labor colleagues in the House of Representatives Terri Butler and Tim Watts introduced a private member's bill to create new offences in relation to the use of a carriage service for sharing private sexual material. Sadly, this bill didn't get any further than Mr Watts introducing it and delivering his second reading speech before it lapsed because of the proroguing of parliament. But, despite Labor's private member's bill lapsing, we have continued to pursue this issue.
Labor went to the last federal election promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise non-consensual sharing of intimate images within the first 100 days of being elected. In October 2016, we reintroduced our private member's bill. However, it was removed from the Notice Paper in May last year because the government continually refused to bring it on for debate. While the national conversation about the need to criminalise this behaviour has gone on for years, the Abbott-Turnbull government has been dragging its feet. This bill comes two years after Labor introduced its private member's bill—two years!—and we've been calling for stronger measures by the Commonwealth to tackle this problem for some time.
I'm in no doubt that my disappointment at the delay in the government's response is shared by the victims of this horrendous behaviour. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images is a gross breach of privacy. What makes this crime particularly horrific is that the consequences for victims can potentially last a lifetime, because once an image has been shared online it becomes almost impossible to retrieve and destroy every copy of that image. Even if the shared content is successfully erased, the victim is left with the fear that the image may still be out there somewhere. And destroying the image does not erase the shame and the humiliation that the victim has suffered.
The Australian Information Commissioner summed up well the impact of this behaviour in a submission to the Department of Communications' consultation on this bill. The commissioner said: 'The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to victims. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by the rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale.' This behaviour needs to be criminalised because it is a form of abuse. It is an increasingly common manifestation of family violence and it is used by perpetrators to use the threat of humiliation to exercise power and control over their victims.
A recent study published by RMIT in May last year found that a high level of psychological distress was experienced by victims of image based abuse. For many victims this was accompanied by a moderate to severe level of depression and/or anxiety. Twenty eight per cent of victims reported that they feared for their safety as a result of image based abuse. While the number of male and female victims was roughly the same, women were more likely than men to report being fearful for their safety; and those fears were greater when there was a threat to distribute an image, rather than the actual distribution of the image. Women were more likely than men to experience image based abuse from a male perpetrator; and the study suggests that, for women victims, it is more often associated with stalking or domestic violence victimisation.
Another reason for the urgent need to address this behaviour is that it's becoming more and more widespread. In his second reading speech to the House, Mr Watts pointed out that one in 10 Australians reported that someone has posted online or sent to others a nude or semi-nude image of them without their consent. The RMIT study to which I referred earlier, with is more recent, found that one in five Australians has experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. With the problem so widespread and having such a profound impact on its victims there is a compelling case for a strong response. And, as if it isn't bad enough that the Turnbull government has dragged its feet for so long, the bill before us now does not go nearly far enough in addressing this problem.
It is important that the parliament sends a strong message to the community that sharing intimate images without consent is not acceptable. But the message needs to be a lot stronger than just a civil penalty regime. The strength of a criminal offence is not just in the severity of the penalties or the fact that it is the police that take action against the offender; it is also in the statement it makes to the public about the seriousness of the behaviour.
The Top End Women's Legal Service in Darwin, which made a submission to the Senate revenge porn inquiry, pointed out that 'a criminal offence also serves a symbolic and educative function, and a tailored offence would clearly highlight and reinforce the wrongfulness of this behaviour. The government's refusal to make this behaviour a criminal offence is out of step with the Australian community.' The RMIT study I referred to earlier also found that four in five Australians agreed that it should be a crime to share sexual or nude pictures without permission. This attitude is fairly consistent throughout the community, regardless of whether the respondents were victims or not.
This is a gap in the law that has to be addressed. It is currently a criminal offence in Victoria and South Australia to share an intimate or invasive image without consent. It is also an offence in both of those states to threaten the distribution of such an image. Without a Commonwealth offence, this leaves a gap in the law across the remainder of the states and territories. It is just not good enough to leave the legislative response to the states and territories. Like most things that happen in the online environment, it is more appropriately dealt with through the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Not only would a Commonwealth law be a simpler way to ensure national consistency in how these offences are dealt with; it would also make it clearer how these crimes are to be dealt with when they happen across state borders.
The government argues that there is no need to introduce a new criminal offence, because section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code makes it an offence to use a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. As the RMIT study points out, many legal experts in their research said this offence is broad in scope and is not enforced well when it comes to image based offences. A civil penalty could actually make the situation worse as it may encourage police to refer cases to the eSafety Commissioner instead of prosecuting.
Labor has asked questions in Senate estimates about how many charges have been proven against defendants for non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and the response from the Australian Federal Police was that, for prosecutions brought about by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, 844 charges have been proven against 410 defendants between the introduction of section 474.17 in 2004 and 5 December 2016. But it's unclear how many of these prosecutions were for image based offences, and without this information we have no evidence that a significant number or, indeed, any instances of image based abuse are resulting in successful prosecutions by the Commonwealth.
The application of this section to image based abuse was also explored in the revenge porn Senate inquiry. The Australian Federal Police told the inquiry that this section had not been used in relation to non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions also gave evidence to the inquiry and raised questions as to how effectively the section could be applied in the context of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. There are a number of aspects of non-consensual sharing of intimate images that were not contemplated in the legislation, such as whether the victim 'held and maintained an expectation of privacy in relation to the image'. The CDPP also pointed out that the section would not apply to image based abuse unless it takes place online, so it would not address behaviour such as sharing hard copies of images. Even if since the inquiry section 474.17 has been tested for image based abuse, considering that one in five Australians report experiencing such abuse, those prosecutions would be a drop in the ocean.
The need for a specific Commonwealth offence was also explored by the RMIT study, which consulted legal experts. The study's report observed:
Overall, in Australia there is a piecemeal legislative approach to image-based abuse, with no nationally consistent criminal laws, the majority of jurisdictions do not have specific offences, and the civil law is out of reach for most Australians without the financial resources to seek justice. The harms associated with image-based abuse further warrant it being specifically classified as a federal telecommunications criminal offence.
The case for a Commonwealth criminal offence is obviously compelling. A civil penalty simply does not go far enough in recognising the seriousness of image based abuse. Introducing a criminal offence sends a strong signal to the perpetrators that not only is the behaviour they're engaging in abuse and unacceptable but it is a crime. While we're disappointed that this bill does not go far enough, Labor will, however, support this bill because it is at least a step in the right direction, and it's better than doing nothing to prevent the hurt and distress that image based abuse causes to victims.
While the bill fails to make non-consensual sharing of intimate images a criminal offence, it includes a number of other important provisions. One of these is a legally enforceable take-down notice to try to remove images from websites. While a take-down notice is a useful mechanism for non-complying content providers, I acknowledge that social media platforms have worked hard to put in place policies and practices that quickly respond to instances of image based abuse. In January 2013, Labor in government signed an agreement with Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to develop robust processes to deal with complaints of cyberbullying and to undertake education and awareness-raising activities. Some of the take-down policies of major social media platforms provide for faster removal of offensive content than the 48 hours stipulated in this bill.
The eSafety Commissioner will of course seek to use established relationships with internet service and social media providers to informally seek the taking down of images, but it helps to have enforcement action as a backup option. It's also important to have a one-stop-shop complaints mechanism administered by the eSafety Commissioner, and this bill complements the online complaints portal pilot that was launched by the commissioner last October.
As I've stated, this bill is a step in the right direction, but the government need to go further. They need to send a much stronger message to the perpetrators of this abuse that society will not tolerate their behaviour. Labor believes, and legal experts and the Australian public agree, that there is a need for a specific Commonwealth criminal offence for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. I urge the government to revisit the private member's bill put forward by Mr Watts and Ms Butler in the House, and to work with Labor on further strengthening our response to the despicable practice of the sharing of intimate images without consent.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:40): I rise to speak to the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017. As noted earlier today by my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John, the Australian Greens welcome and support this bill because we support action to protect those who experience or may experience the abuse, threats, extortion or other harm caused by the non-consensual sharing of their intimate images or threats to share such images. I'm heartened that the government has listened to the voices in this chamber and across Australia who have been calling for a long time for legislation that deals with non-consensual sharing of images.
While this bill is a welcome step in protecting people from the non-consensual sharing of images, the Greens consider that this bill has been brought on for debate far too quickly. Yes, we need legislation, but it would have been much better for this legislation to have had the opportunity to go through the standard Senate process of a committee inquiry, because then this bill would, I am certain, have been improved from what it is today. We have some amendments that we're going to be moving to this bill that will improve it, but I'm certain that if we'd had the chance to have the scrutiny of a Senate inquiry process we would have ended up with much better legislation. I think it's disappointing the government has brought this bill on before it is ready.
In-depth research conducted by RMIT University found the issue of non-consensual sharing of images affects a wide cross-section of the community. The key findings of the research demonstrate the extent of the problem and why we must address it. One in five Australians have experienced image based abuse. Victims of image based abuse experience high levels of psychological distress. Women and men are equally likely to report being a victim. Perpetrators of image based abuse are most likely to be male and known to the victim. Men and young adults are more likely to voluntarily share a nude or sexual image of themselves. Women are more likely than men to fear for their safety due to image based abuse. Abuse risk is higher for those who share sexual selfies, but they aren't the only victims. One in two Australians with a disability report being a victim of image based abuse. Let that sink in: one in two Australians with a disability. One in two Indigenous Australians report image based abuse and victimisation. Image based abuse and victimisation is higher for lesbian, gay and bisexual Australians. Young people aged 16 to 29 years are also at high risk of image based abuse. Critically, given the impact of this, it is heartening to know that four out of five Australians agree that it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission.
It's worth noting that men make up the majority of perpetrators when it comes to non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and that women are more likely than men to be victimised by an intimate partner or ex-partner. It's in this context that I am talking tonight, as the Greens spokesperson for women. Importantly, the research showed that those most likely to be targeted by non-consensual sharing of their intimate images are those in our community who are likely to be dealing with discrimination, prejudice and injustice, including disabled people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
On top of this the research found that the victims of non-consensual images may have also experienced domestic or family violence, sexual violence, stalking, sexual harassment and other forms of interpersonal violence. The psychological impact of this abuse can be significant, and negative implications can affect victims' reputation, family, employment, social relationships and even personal safety. And, as noted by the chief investigator of the RMIT University research project, Dr Nicola Henry, this isn't just about revenge porn. Images are being used to control, abuse and humiliate people in ways that go well beyond a relationship-gone-sour scenario.
This research, undertaken by RMIT, goes to the heart of why this bill is so important. Statistically, we know that the most dangerous place for a woman is in her home. Women are more likely to be killed by their current or former male partner than by any other cause. And we know from the #MeToo movement and the ongoing campaigns for women's rights that women across the world—on the streets and in their workplaces; young and old—face daily sexual harassment, abuse and violence. And so, in a broader cultural context of disrespect and harassment, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is a particularly targeted, insidious and damaging form of abuse. Women are more likely to experience this form of abuse at the hands of a partner or ex-partner, and this exemplifies a particularly horrifying version of controlling and humiliating behaviour.
I want to share a case study with you, an example of the harm that can be caused by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. It is a case of two women in a regional town whose intimate images and videos were posted without consent to a pornographic image board. The victims identified the same man as responsible for disseminating the intimate images. The man had also targeted other women in the town. He had posted their images to the same link, which identified the town and, in some of the cases, the names and the workplaces of the victims. Just imagine being the subject of that harassment.
The civil penalties that this legislation proposes would provide a range of options to deal with a perpetrator's behaviour, including issuing a warning; issuing a removal notice, requiring the perpetrator to remove the images; issuing an infringement; and preventing the further publication or dissemination of images through an enforcement mechanism, such as an undertaking or a court injunction. So the Greens are welcoming action on this important issue that, as the research indicates, affects many people from many demographics. However, as my colleague Senator Steele-John has indicated, we are very concerned about the implications of this proposed civil penalties regime for people who are under 18. For that reason, we're going to be moving an amendment about this issue, for which we are seeking the Senate's consideration of support.
In conclusion, I'm pleased that the government has brought on this legislation. It could be better legislation. It would have benefited from having gone through a thorough Senate inquiry process, but it is legislation that is absolutely worth supporting. I am pleased to be able to join Senator Steele-John in saying that the Greens will be supporting this important legislation.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (18:48): I'm really happy to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017. This bill has come almost 10 years after my own experience of the degrading, embarrassing and false depiction of me, courtesy of Neil Breen, on the front page of The Sunday Mail and The Sunday Telegraph in March 2009. It was one week—actually it wasn't even a week; it was six days—out from the 2009 Queensland state election in which I was standing as a candidate. I woke up on that Sunday morning. I bought the paper and saw these images of a woman who was partially nude and the claims that they were pictures of me. Of course, I contacted the newspapers and said, 'They are not pictures of me.' I was getting calls in regard to this. Of course my immediate family knew. Even my ex-husband made it quite clear, 'That's not her.' This went on for a week. The newspaper stood by that they were images of me. The dates, the times and the ages did not add up. This was all because it was political. To go through this experience was terribly embarrassing—imagine what the public thought—so I can understand how people feel about their own images.
I remember the last time I was in parliament there was another image put up of me. The image was of me—as the head of another woman being held by the arms by two black men—and I was delivering a baby. I went to the minister with regard to this—this organisation was funded through the ABC—and nothing was done about it. So, yes, it is well and truly overdue for something to be done about this.
I explain with this that, as the old saying goes, sometimes it takes two to tango. I say to anyone out there who thinks that intimate images of themselves are okay to send via text message or email: 'Stop it. Keep it for the bedroom.' People, regardless of your age, it's in what is told to you by your parents and how you feel about yourself: people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Young people who get requests for intimate images of themselves early in relationships should not do it. Relationships don't always last, and the person they are with may very well turn nasty on them. I'm very pleased to say that One Nation are a part of putting a dent in this abhorrent trend of shaming people using online methods and intimate images, but I reiterate: I want every man, woman and young adult to know that they too must play a role in ensuring their private photos are kept private.
There are some amendments that will be moved today. The Xenophon amendment will make this a criminal offence. One Nation will not be supporting that amendment, on the basis that we have a Criminal Code that covers a lot of this. We have to be very careful here. The younger generation—those under 18 years of age—are taking pictures of themselves and their friends. If you make it a criminal offence, this will be a mark against them for the rest of their lives. We know they do some stupid things, but a criminal record affects your visa, job applications, profession and blue card, and travelling overseas. I suggest we don't make this a criminal offence. Another thing: if you don't make it a criminal offence for those who are under age, people who are of adult age will then blame someone who is under age. I just don't feel that we should be making it a criminal offence.
Labor has put up an amendment to review this in three years time. I do support that. I think it should be reviewed. Let's look at the bill as a whole as it is at the moment. I think the civil penalties will go far enough. We can then review it. If it's not working, then we can address it in three years time.
There has been talk in the chamber today of whether it should be an offence to take a photo of anyone wearing a burqa. We have an Australian standard. If they are photographed wearing a burqa, that's not offensive to the Australian people and it should not come into the act. The burqa is not a religious requirement, so I don't believe that should even come into it. We have our standards—what we find offensive and what intimate images should not be shown and put across or texted. I commend the bill. We will be supporting this.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:54): It doesn't look as though any other colleagues wish to contribute to the second reading debate, so I thank all colleagues for their contributions. As has been canvassed in the contributions of colleagues, Australians are immersing themselves in the online world through social networking sites, online games, smartphones and tablets. We all agree that the internet is a vital tool for education, research, entertainment and social interaction; however, we have witnessed in recent times that the internet can be used for the wrong purposes, which can lead to very tragic consequences.
Creating a safer online world requires broad community involvement from industry, schools, parents, children, support agencies and government. We all play a role in ensuring that Australians can safely and confidently take advantage of the great benefits of the internet and other digital technologies. The government will continue to consult with stakeholders and consider other actions that can be implemented to address online harms. I think all colleagues would concur that, when it comes to the online space and potential misuse, there is no single response; there needs to be a range of responses, which include education, civil and criminal remedies, and government, non-government and community efforts.
The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017 reflects part of the government's contribution to those efforts: our ongoing commitment to keep Australians safe online, in this case from a very specific abuse—that of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This is a significant issue that can have an adverse impact on victims, their families and the community. The psychological impact on victims can be significant and can have very negative implications affecting their reputation, family, employment, social relationships and even personal safety.
The reasons for non-consensual sharing of intimate images are varied. It can often occur as a result of a victim's ex-partner seeking revenge; it can also involve acquaintances or complete strangers distributing the images either maliciously or for other nefarious reasons. Whatever the reasons for sharing intimate images without consent, the practice is intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing of intimate images or through the threat to share. Often such threats are made in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce, bully or punish a victim. Other motives might include personal gratification, some sort of strange notoriety or even financial gain. The sharing of images can occur over various electronic services, including email, text, multimedia messaging, social media services, websites including other material of an explicit nature, message boards, forum websites and websites specifically designed to host images shared without consent.
The bill seeks to create a prohibition against non-consensually posting or threatening to post an intimate image on a social media service, a relevant electronic service such as email and text messaging, or a designated internet service, which includes websites and peer-to-peer file-sharing services. The bill establishes a complaints and objections system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner, where victims or persons authorised on behalf of victims will be able to lodge a complaint directly to the eSafety Commissioner where there is reason to believe that an intimate image has been posted without consent or where a threat has been made to do so. The bill will facilitate the removal of an image where a person who initially consented to an image being shared has subsequently changed their mind and now wishes to have the image removed. People in this situation will be able to lodge an objection notice with the commissioner. The bill will introduce a civil penalty regime to be enforced by the eSafety Commissioner. Penalties of up to $105,000 for individuals and up to $525,000 for corporations can be incurred for a breach of the prohibition or failure to comply with a removal notice or other remedial direction issued by the eSafety Commissioner.
On 16 October 2017, the government welcomed the pilot launch of a new national portal for reporting instances of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The portal is a world-first for a government-led initiative, developed by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, and provides immediate and tangible support to victims of image based abuse. The portal gives victims a place to seek assistance and report instances of image based abuse. It provides clear and concise information about the practical steps victims can take to reduce the impact of the abuse. Since the launch of the portal, the eSafety office has received over 115 reports of image based abuse which related to nearly 220 separate URLs and locations where the images were made available. In addition, the eSafety office has received almost 60 queries regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and had over 48,000 total visits to the image abuse portal. Noting these statistics, it is essential that the eSafety Commissioner has the legislative backing to enable quick removal of intimate images shared without consent and to administer a civil penalty regime targeting perpetrators and content hosts who knowingly engage in this behaviour.
The sharing of intimate images without consent is a major concern in the community. This bill sends a clear message to all Australians that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society. The bill has been developed in consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group.
I should just take a moment to put this bill in the wider context of the government's efforts in relation to online safety and make mention of the fact that when Mr Fletcher, from the other place, was the Assistant Minister for Communications and Mr Turnbull was the communications minister, they legislated the establishment of what was then called the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to be a one-stop shop for children, parents, schools and other organisations so that if bullying of young people was taking place online there was a place they could go for assistance. Also legislated as part of the establishment of the Children's eSafety Commissioner was the world's first legislated mechanism for take-downs of cyberbullying material as it concerns children. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner has, so far, had a 100 per cent success rate in having that material taken down.
I take the time to mention this because the tools and support that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner have are not as well-known as we would like them to be. Where children are in difficulty, there is a place they can go. Over time, the role of the Children's eSafety Commissioner has expanded to cover, in particular, services and support for women and for victims of domestic abuse. As a result of that expanded mandate, we legislated and changed the name of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to reflect the fact that they do have a broad remit. Julie Inman-Grant, as the eSafety Commissioner, is providing great leadership to the organisation and great support to members of the community. We're all very aware of recent instances of online abuse which have been in the media and some of the tragic circumstances that we have seen as a result of the contribution of those activities to the distress that individuals have.
In the context of this legislation, it's important that the civil penalties regime is seen as another tool, another avenue, another opportunity for people who are subject to image based abuse—the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Civil penalties are an optional remedy that sits alongside criminal provisions which are in place at Commonwealth level and are in place in most state jurisdictions. There is a process underway under the auspices of the ministerial Council of Attorneys-General to achieve consistency in the state and territory legislation when it concerns criminal provisions. Sometimes, when we're talking about civil penalties, they're presented as though these are being put forward instead of criminal sanctions. They're not. They're being put forward as another option that is available to address this scourge.
So, with those comments, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I know colleagues have a range of amendments that they will be seeking to move, and I'm sure we will have a good discussion in that context.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator O'Neill, on sheet 8363, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [19:11]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:15): I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8364 revised:
(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of operation of amendments
(1) Within 3 years after the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause to be conducted an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a written report of the review.
(3) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.
I'd like to put a few remarks on the record. Labor circulated sheet 8364 containing a review clause. This sheet was today revised and recirculated to deal with the contingency that the amendments proposed by the Nick Xenophon Team are yet to be determined in this place or agreed to in the Senate. Whether or not a civil or a civil and criminal scheme is established by this bill, Labor believes that it should be reviewed in due course. I appreciate the commentary in contributions by others that they will support that.
As I stated in my speech on the second reading of the bill, Labor believes that, within three years of its commencement, the minister should cause a review to be conducted of the new statutory regime for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, along with the preparation and tabling of a report in each house of the parliament.
While the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 already includes a review clause, at section 107, this review is due to commence in the very near future, and we believe that would be an inadequate time frame for the proper testing of this piece of legislation. If conducted in a timely fashion, that review will assess the cyberbullying regime that first commenced in 2015 but will be of limited efficacy given that the new regime for image based abuse won't have been in operation for very long at all.
I detailed the concerns of various stakeholders in my second reading contribution this morning. These included commentary from the DIGI Group, who gave evidence about the efficacy of measures in this bill. In accordance with best practice, Labor thinks there should be a further meaningful review of any new regime for image based abuse once it's been in operation for a substantial period. I seek the support of the Senate for Labor's detailed amendment.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (19:17): I indicate to colleagues that we have been in discussion with the opposition about this amendment. We think it is a practical amendment. It's consistent with the existing requirement that there be a statutory review of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 conducted three years after the commencement of that act. This is a similar mechanism and one that we support.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:17): As I mentioned in my speech on the second reading, the Australian Greens are disappointed that this legislation was brought on for debate in such haste that it didn't allow for scrutiny, despite our best efforts to refer the bill to an inquiry. The government, as I mentioned earlier today, has tried to dismiss our request for a review, citing previous consultations; however, as I have also previously noted, consultation does not negate the need for scrutiny. You consult, you formulate and then you scrutinise the result. I'm sure that isn't a concept beyond anyone in this chamber and I find the fact that we are bypassing that critical final step to be a really sad reflection on the ways in which other, external political motivations sometimes drive the process of legislative review in this place.
We're also disappointed, I have to say, that this kind of approach has been taken despite repeated attempts, both within this chamber and without, to have that be otherwise. In the absence of scrutiny, it seems that we are left with this review process. Therefore we support the ALP's amendment to put in place an independent review to examine the effectiveness of the regime and the operation of the amendments made by this legislation.
Question agreed to.
Progress reported.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Leyonhjelm ) (19:20): I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Crooks, Professor Levinia, AM
Fazulla, Mr Neville
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:20): Before I begin, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware that my speech contains the name of a deceased person.
In times of uncertainty, leaders reveal themselves. They do not walk a path already set out for them. They pave the road themselves with the boldness and the measuredness of their actions. Australia has emerged as a world leader in addressing the impact of HIV and AIDS. We've certainly come a long way on this journey, from being the home of the Grim Reaper to pioneering management treatment and response. Indeed, leaders in this field are confident Australia could well be the first country to virtually end the transmission of HIV. Significantly, we may be on the cusp of achieving the ambitious 90-90-90 goal introduced by UNAIDS less than five years ago. The most recent development of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee—just in the last few days—recommending PrEP be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is welcome news for those living with HIV in our country. For that and so many other achievements we should be proud.
But we know there is much work yet to be done. No-one understood this more than two trailblazers we recently lost, Levinia Crooks and Neville Fazulla, whose focus and optimism have been instrumental in Australia's success as a leader in the fight against HIV and AIDS.
Much has been said about the late, great Levinia Crooks. She was adjunct associate professor and CEO of the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine for almost 20 years. When you talk to those who knew Levinia or even knew of her, the word 'visionary' is used a great deal. She threw herself into learning about, researching and taking action on HIV and AIDS in the 1980s at a time when people were afraid for their lives. Levinia, all the while, must have known there was hope on the horizon—a visionary indeed. Levinia was a well-acknowledged and tireless advocate whose compassion and determination not only guided but propelled her into effecting change. She had an uncanny ability to bring people together and collaborated for the best possible result. Her boundless support for those living with HIV and ongoing engagement with doctors and healthcare providers ensured that Australians were able to not only manage their health and wellbeing but enjoy life. Importantly, she pushed the debate in directions that led to outcomes.
Levinia, sadly, passed away in October last year, but her incomparable contribution to Australia's response to HIV/AIDS and sexual health continues to inspire and lead many of us. Because of her activism and her actions, we can continue to address sexual health issues in our country without fear.
Another giant in the response to HIV and AIDS was Neville Fazulla. For three decades, Neville Fazulla was at the front line of advocacy. He fought tirelessly for people living with HIV, campaigned for a community response and was a proud representative for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In living his life openly as a man with HIV, he was an inspiration to so many whose fears of stigma and discrimination often prevented them from getting tested or seeking treatment. Neville Fazulla was a champion for self-management and the implementation of self-management programs so people could be independent, self-sufficient and confident about their quality of life.
Neville was, importantly, a vital voice in Australia's conversation about HIV and its impact on Indigenous communities, notably through his work as Chair of the Anwernekenhe National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HIV/AIDS Alliance and Anwernekenhe conferences. He was a founding member of the steering committee for the all-important Anwernekenhe I, in 1994, the first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander gay men and transgender sexual health conference ever held in our country.
We lost Neville last month. As the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations eloquently phrased it, 'The magnitude of Neville's contribution is impossible to capture and will be felt for years to come.' As chair of the parliamentary liaison group for HIV/AIDS, blood-borne viruses and sexually transmitted infections, I wanted to acknowledge the indelible mark that both Levinia and Neville have left on a community that regarded them so highly—two warriors for whom the fight against HIV/AIDS was defining and, in so many respects, personal. In remembering them, let us think what we can do.
Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 10th Anniversary
China: Human Rights
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (19:25): I rise to share my sentiment and support for Australia's first nations peoples on this day, the 10th anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations. Ten years ago, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd turned a new page for Australia. On behalf of the Labor Party, the parliament and the nation of Australia, he said:
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
His acknowledgement of remorse, regret and shame changed us. For the first time, the elected leader of the Australian people put it on record that the nation was stopping to ask: 'How would I feel if this were done to me? How would I feel if my children were taken from me and if I had no idea where they were taken, if I would ever see them again, if they got my letters, or if they would remember my face or where they came from?'
I want to pay tribute to the survivors of the stolen generations for their generosity and forgiveness, and I am proud of Bill Shorten's announcement yesterday that a federal Labor government would create a stolen generations compensation fund, provide $10 million in funding for the Healing Foundation, and establish and convene a national summit on first nations children. I also recognise the call today by the Law Council of Australia for justice targets to end the high imprisonment rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is the beginning of what Senator Pat Dodson has called for: a clear agreement of recognition—of recognition of the wrongs and the actions needed to right them.
The new page that the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd turned a decade ago was not an entirely new beginning for reconciliation, but it did mean the start of a new chapter. And today, 10 years on, we share the depth of that sorrow, we pay our respects and we remember.
I also want to raise a grave human rights issue tonight for a Tibetan man's peaceful campaign for language rights. Tashi Wangchuk has been detained in China since January 2016, after The New York Times published a video about his advocacy for Tibetan-language education. He has been held in secret detention for two years now and denied contact from lawyers and family members for months, being subjected to constant interrogation. He has been charged by the Chinese government with inciting separatism. Whilst the verdict is still pending, he could face 15 years imprisonment, and China's courts have a 99 per cent conviction rate.
The Chinese authorities on the Tibetan Plateau have slowly been eradicating the Tibetan language, yet Tashi Wangchuk believes prohibiting the study of the Tibetan language runs counter to China's own Constitution, which states:
All nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages …
Voices around the world, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the US embassy in Beijing and the European Union, have publicly criticised the Chinese government and voiced their concerns to the UN Human Rights Council. So tonight I join them in calling on the Chinese government to release Tashi Wangchuk immediately and unconditionally and to take effective measures to ensure that Tibetans enjoy the right to learn and practise their language, as such a step is in accordance with China's own laws in its Constitution and its international commitments. I hope that Tashi Wangchuk, in his efforts to be able to speak his own Tibetan language, has the freedom to do it outside of being in detention and is freed.
Batman By-Election
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (19:30): I rise today to speak about an important election that will shape up in a few weeks' time, the Batman by-election, which is so much more than a choice between the Greens and Labor. For the people of Batman, which is one of the most progressive places in the country, this election shapes up as a choice about the kind of country and the kind of community that we want to live in. It is a community that fights climate change by stopping the Adani mine, by banning new coalmines and making the transition to clean renewable energy. It is a community that shows compassion towards people seeking asylum and closes offshore detention centres. It is a community that stands up to racism and bigotry, to ensure that we protect that very precious Australian asset, multiculturalism. It is a community that solves the affordable housing crisis and tackles inequality by getting rents under control and by closing those tax loopholes that lock out first home buyers and is one where we invest in public housing. And, of course, it is a community that wants to get big corporate interests out of politics and restore integrity to our political system. People know, right around the country, that these are values that we Greens will always stand up for. We will do it every time with every vote, not just when it's politically expedient.
Of course, no issue contrasts the Greens to the Labor and Liberal parties more than that of the Adani coalmine. The Batman by-election became more likely after the eight months of the citizenship debacle—one that saw Bill Shorten and his colleagues go through dozens of shades of equivocation, dodging and hedging on this issue. It's true that the opposition leader may indeed be preparing to say the words that he should have uttered many years ago, when this massive, polluting mine first came into the national spotlight. He may be preparing to say that Labor does oppose it. But let's be clear: this comes as a result of the huge Greens win in the Northcote by-election, a swing to the Greens in the Queensland election and a nationwide campaign from members of the community—ordinary mums, dads, children and grandparents—all working hard to stop that Adani mine. It is a movement that has built and has now successfully engaged Australians right across the country, and it looks like it may drag Labor kicking and screaming from supporting the mine to casting doubts on it and potentially, on the eve of a by-election, to rejecting it.
This will be not just a win for Greens but a win for all of those activists right across the country, for those ordinary people who have campaigned so hard to make this a reality. Most importantly, if it does happen, it may well be a win for those future generations that follow. We will certainly welcome Labor in shifting and finally joining the campaign to stop Adani.
But let's remember: this is not just about Adani. This is about the future of coal in our energy mix. It is indeed about the very future of our planet and everything that depends upon it. We need a rapid transition away from coal to renewables and battery storage. We need a plan for coal workers and their communities. Of course, we Greens have that plan.
It is an indictment on Labor that they've taken so long to speak up. Of course, they'll argue that it's because of the company that proposes to build this mine and its legacy of corruption and environmental damage. But what they won't argue is the central truth here—that, if this mine or other mines go ahead in the Galilee Basin, we stand to lose everything that's precious to us.
If we Greens can achieve this much already through our work with the community in supporting them, imagine what we can achieve by electing more Greens to this place. Whether it's the Adani mine, whether it's housing affordability, whether it's a banking royal commission or a national anti-corruption watchdog, we are leading the national debate. We are out in front. And it is now only a matter of time before we see Labor follow us in that transition that is so important for the future of our nation. (Time expired)
Flynn Electorate
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:35): I rise tonight to talk about Labor's commitment to Gladstone and the federal electorate of Flynn, which is one of my duty electorates. It is important to note that, at a time when the National Party are tearing themselves apart over the antics of the Deputy Prime Minister and are focused on themselves, Labor is focused on the people of regional Queensland. I'm so proud that the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, last Friday visited Gladstone and made a very important announcement in relation to the Gladstone Port Access Road. Mr Shorten committed $100 million to commence the work there, which will happen in the first term of a Shorten Labor government. This is part of Labor's plan for real jobs in regional Queensland: investing in infrastructure, manufacturing, mining, agriculture and energy, getting on with the job of supporting industry, and creating and sustaining jobs in regional Queensland. We know that there are regional hubs in Gladstone, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton and Cairns.
What does this announcement mean for Gladstone? Many people describe Gladstone as being the jewel in the industrial crown of Australia. For the people of Gladstone this means 200 extra local jobs. The Port of Gladstone is one of the most important pieces of economic infrastructure in Central Queensland. It is on Infrastructure Australia's priority list. The amount of commodities and throughput that goes through the Port of Gladstone is absolutely essential for Australia's export earnings, and access to that port is critical. Export growth is reliant on access to the port. It's interesting to note that our Premier just last week made reference to the fact that Queensland is the export capital of Australia. We earned a record nearly $70 billion from exports last year, which is up at a faster rate than the rest of the country. The rest of the country's exports grew at 16 per cent, but that's not as fast as the rate of growth for Queensland. One in every four dollars Australia earns from exports is generated in Queensland. This is up by $25 billion on the last full calendar year of the former Newman LNP government, so the Labor government of Queensland is delivering for the people of Queensland and for Australia.
Labor has already committed $100 million to ensure Townsville's water security, $200 million for a hydro-electric generator at the Burdekin dam, $167 million for the Rookwood Weir to help shore up future water supplies for Rockhampton and Gladstone, $1 billion for a Northern Australia tourism infrastructure fund—an advisory panel to ensure Labor is ready to deliver tourism projects if elected—and a $1 billion Australian manufacturing future fund. Additionally, in contrast to our political opponents, we are committed to restoring penalty rates, not cutting them; standing up for mining workers, not making their jobs more precarious; and reviewing free trade agreement protocols to expedite export opportunities for produce growers, particularly in the hinterland of the seat of Flynn. Labor are committed to regional Queensland and we can prove it. Federal leader Bill Shorten has held 16 town hall meetings throughout regional Queensland, one of which I co-hosted in Gladstone. He is on the ground listening and developing policies for regional Queenslanders. In the last six months I personally visited Longreach, Barcaldine, Winton, Boonah, Mount Morgan, Rockhampton and Emerald, and I've been to Gladstone on many occasions since my election as a senator.
I'm proud to support Zac Beers, our federal candidate for Flynn in 2016. I know that Zac has been very active in the local community, and I thank him for bringing local issues to my attention as they arise. In contrast, the LNP have done nothing for the area. The Gladstone port land and sea access upgrade has been listed on the Infrastructure Australia priority list for a number of years, but Mr O'Dowd has done nothing to progress that project. Today we had reports in the Gladstone Observer that, in spite of his failure to deliver jobs and infrastructure, Mr O'Dowd is ready to throw up his hand to replace the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. Maybe then the member for Flynn will have the clout to get the Prime Minister to visit the seat of Flynn. Labor has a positive plan and a leader who is a regular in the region. The Liberal Party can't be bothered. (Time expired)
Aged Care
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (19:40): In September last year, I introduced into the Senate a bill concerning shocking conditions and the need for staff ratios in nursing homes and other aged care facilities—the Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017. I made the point that these days the majority of aged care staff in Australia are personal care attendants, PCAs, or community care workers, CCWs. There has been a disturbing decline in the number of registered nurses over the past decade. A figure that really shocked me was that, in 2016, the average total care hours worked per resident was less than three hours a day. Some of the other figures were really suss, because several registered nurses risked their jobs to come and see me in my Melbourne office and challenged the staffing figures boasted by some nursing homes and aged care centres. They said that often the maintenance man, the guy who cut the lawns and the cleaner were included in the count of the number of staff supposedly looking after residents. The bill did not go to division. No major party agreed to support it.
I know that the Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the quality of aged care and accreditation tabled its interim report today, but recent media reports from around the country show that things are getting worse in a lot of places. Food—or lack of it—is a great example. I've said before that prisoners in jail eat better than many of our pensioners and people in aged care. The last time I was in jail, as they say, or as I say, was at Langi Kal Kal Prison in Victoria. We cooked our own food. We had steaks, roast chicken, chops and homemade Greek yoghurt, because we were given as many litres of fresh milk as we wanted, every day—free.
An investigation by Bond University dietitian Cherie Hugo and accountancy firm StewartBrown has revealed that aged care homes spend just $6.08 on three meals a day—total. Six bucks! This is a decrease of 30c per resident since last year. Furthermore, the study shows that half the residents of aged care homes suffer from malnutrition. The survey counts the cost of ingredients and excludes 'nutrition supplements' et cetera, which cost an extra 89c a day. The study is based on financial reports from more than 800 aged care providers caring for about 65,000 residents, and it was published in the Nutrition & Dietetics journal. I saw one report which claimed that more than 60 per cent of people have lost at least 10 per cent of their body weight within the first six months of their admission to the facility. Some were obviously starving.
And listen to this for a shocker concerning incontinence pads. Aged care workers in one facility in Sydney's west have been told to leave pads on people if they are only half-wet. Care worker Esther Priol says that she and her colleagues have been directed to follow that order, even when elderly nursing home residents have asked to be changed. She said:
We have been told we have been spending too much money on pads. Unless they are 75 per cent wet, then the rule is we don't change them.
You divide the pad into fours and if three-fourths of the pad is wet, you change it.
That is a disgrace. Ms Priol is one of thousands of aged care workers nationally who complain about increasing rationing of everything from incontinence pads to meals. They say that they struggle daily to provide the most basic level of care and dignity for elderly people. Here in Canberra, a memo from aged care provider Bupa outlines a protocol for sticking to the continence 'pad quota', which is running 'over budget'. I would like to see one of their pencil-pushers sitting around in urine-filled underpants. Across New South Wales, 58 per cent of aged care workers surveyed said they have been not able to provide the level of care that residents deserve because of budget cuts and, of those, 80 per cent said staff shortages were the main buffer to providing proper care.
The results of a survey of 300 members of the Health Services Union will be released when the union launches a national campaign here in Canberra. I say again tonight, and I know I've said it before: it is to our national shame. And I just keep going back to something that I've been unapologetically saying for decades. Politicians and bureaucrats seem to forget that the only difference between old people and us is that they got there first.
Regional Queensland
Senator WATT (Queensland) (19:44): Over the last few months, there has been an increasing amount of debate within the community about the need for more jobs in regional Queensland. That is something that, as a senator for Queensland, I've been very vocal about ever since I arrived here a bit over 18 months ago. I've been very pleased that, as Senator Ketter has just mentioned, federal Labor has responded to the needs of regional Queensland by already having committed to a $1 billion manufacturing fund, which will benefit manufacturing in regional Queensland. We have also announced that we would allocate $1 billion to establish a northern Australia tourism infrastructure fund to support new tourism development in northern Australia, which is very important given how important an industry tourism is in that part of the world.
But also for people who are already in jobs—as opposed to how we are going to create new jobs—Labor has been at the forefront of the debate about the need to protect employment security for people in work. Regional Queensland has been suffering for some time now from an economic slump. As well as people being laid off entirely from their work, what we've seen increasingly from employers is a tendency to bring people on in insecure work via labour hire, via casual employment, via contract employment and all sorts of other ways to drive down wages and conditions. So there has been a lot of debate about the need for jobs in regional Queensland.
Senator Williams: So you'd support Adani?
Senator WATT: It's appropriate that Senator Williams raises Adani. There has been a lot of debate both down here and in regional Queensland about the Adani mine project. From the amount of talk you've heard from the LNP about Adani—and it has just been evidenced by the fact that Senator Williams has raised Adani while I am talking about regional jobs—you would think the LNP have a one-track mind. The only project they see any future in, in regional Queensland, is the Adani mine project.
I've made my views known about the Adani project at other times, and there is no need for me to go back over that in great detail tonight. But it's no surprise that the LNP seize upon Adani as the only thing they want to talk about in relation to regional jobs in Queensland; if you look at the list of failures from the LNP around regional jobs, they've got nothing else to talk about. Of course, the most infamous example is their $1 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF—also known as the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. It is a fund that was announced and created three years ago, and it has still not created a single job or spent a single dollar on a project in regional Queensland.
But it goes well beyond the NAIF. Eighteen months ago, at the last election, a number of regional LNP candidates announced regional jobs and investment funds that would be out there supporting new jobs and projects in regional Queensland. Eighteen months later, guess how many projects have been funded, guess how many jobs have been created? Zero, not one—just like the NAIF. And then there was the Regional Growth Fund announced by this government nine months ago. It is yet to issue guidelines, let alone start funding projects. And that's before we get to the fact that the LNP have been completely missing in action when it comes to defending people who are in work from the casualisation, labour hire and insecure work that is rife across regional Queensland. They do nothing about that at all.
Labor has a different approach. Last week I was very pleased to join Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, in Gladstone to announce Labor's Real Jobs for Regional Queensland package. We think it's important that the debate about jobs in regional Queensland gets beyond that one mining project. Regardless of the merits of that project, regardless of your views on that project, it is a terrible thing for regional Queensland if the only plan of a particular government is to fund and support one mining project. But that is all the LNP have to offer. They have a list of other funds that have done nothing for jobs in regional Queensland, and all they want to do is bang on about one particular mining project.
Labor, on the other hand, sees a lot of opportunities in regional Queensland in a range of different sectors. We do think there is a future for regional Queensland in energy, mining and resources. But we also think there is a future in tourism, agriculture and education. That's why we were announcing funding last week for projects like Rookwood Weir and the Gladstone port access road. Regional Queensland, more than anything, wants a bunch of LNP MPs who come down here and focus on the jobs of regional Queensland. But this week has shown yet again that there is only one job that regional Queensland LNP members care about, and that's Leader of the National Party.
Goods and Services Tax
Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (19:49): I was reported in The Courier-Mail last week, accused of describing the way the GST revenue is divided amongst the states as a socialist plot. That's not quite what I said. I was making the point that progressive states which develop resources should not have to subsidise other states which don't develop their own industries or resources. What I actually said was that the way in which our GST formula is calculated under the current HFE system is extreme and the extent to which the formula is used isn't applied to the same extent anywhere else in the world. It embodies the socialist idea of redistributing wealth and making everyone equal. Nothing kills human enterprise faster than that.
This is not about pitting one state against another or an us-or-them argument. It's about fairness, economic efficiency, what's best for the nation as a whole and encouraging other states to develop their own resources. Western Australia receives only 34c for every dollar of GST it collects. Other states get between 89c and $1.81. The lowest any other state share has dropped is to 84c, which was Victoria in 1994. The Productivity Commission draft report released last October concluded that the current system is under significant strain as Western Australia's share of GFC has fallen to an extreme low. Western Australians get only $878 per capita compared to the average of $2,553. South Australian gets $3,671, Tasmanians get $4,601 and the people of the Northern Territory get $11,881.
Under proposals from the Productivity Commission, the current system whereby GST money is redistributed to elevate each state to the level of strongest state should be dumped. Instead, either an average level or the second-strongest-state level would be the benchmark. Under the average formula proposal Western Australia stands to gain an extra $3.2 billion per year, and under the second-strongest-state level Western Australia would get an extra $3.6 billion per year. There is a lot at stake here.
Some other states have argued that this is unfair, but these proposals would still leave Western Australia subsidising other states. It needs to be understood that, if several other states had a small per cent cut in their subsidy from Western Australia, it would translate into a significant gain for Western Australia compared to the current very low share WA gets now.
A lack of structural reform of the GST is the most important issue facing all Western Australians at present. It's been reported over the years of resource development that Western Australia has had to build extra infrastructure equivalent to that of the entire state of Tasmania. The state government has had to fund extra roads, freeways, ports, hospitals and schools as a result of this economic growth. Due to the development of our resources, both Labor and Liberal state governments are in positions where it's impossible to balance state budgets, with billions of dollars being diverted out of our state. The state government in Western Australia is now in a position where it has to cut back on core services even though the state as a whole provides the largest proportion of Australia's export income. No matter how you look at this, the system is unfair and is not in the nation's interests.
Research by the federal Parliamentary Library shows the annual carve-up of the GST has not only hit WA's state budget but also its jobs market. Since 2001, Western Australia has lost a staggering $41.5 billion to other states and territories when compared to the per capita GST allocation. According to the library, about 35 per cent of that, or $15.5 billion, would have been spent on job-creating infrastructure which would have generated 32,000 full-time jobs. What a wasted opportunity. While Western Australians have been building one of the world's showpiece mining industries, the benefits have been redistributed to those who have done none of the work. Victoria has been rapidly shutting down its mining industry and has been the biggest beneficiary, ripping out $18 billion.
We must get to a point where the distribution of the GST encourages governments to develop their own resources and economies rather than subsidising those who don't.
Queensland Government
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (19:55): While it might seem a long time ago that we had the Queensland election—it was more than 2½ months ago—today we finally saw the first day of sittings of the newly elected Queensland parliament. I congratulate the Labor government on being re-elected. I particularly congratulate and celebrate the first elected Greens MP in the Queensland parliament, Michael Berkman, who is also the first member for the newly created electorate of Maiwar. I would say it's a particularly good thing to have a Greens MP in there, because there will be a very strong need to put progressive pressure on the Labor government on a whole range of issues, including their performance on the Queensland economy and their impact on the Queensland environment.
Certainly there are still ongoing concerns. I note that Senator Watt—a fellow Queensland senator—has just expressed his concerns about the problems and inadequacies of the proposed Adani Carmichael coalmine. It is very concerning that the Queensland government are still clearly very, very focused on expanding coal in Queensland. Regardless of when it is that the Adani Carmichael mine finally falls over, as it inevitably will, there is clearly still a very strong commitment from the Queensland Labor government to try to open up new coalmines elsewhere in Queensland—particularly the unopened Galilee Basin. We've still got people like Gina Rinehart, like Clive Palmer, and plenty of others waiting in the wings, looking for their chance to open up a new coalmine.
I'm also concerned that it seems that, apart from this fixation on coal, there is also a continuing push for casinos. This dual cargo cult mentality of a coal-casino-driven economy is one that the Greens are very concerned about. I'd like to mention evidence given to a Senate Economics References Committee inquiry that I was at in Cairns just a couple weeks ago. The evidence was given by the CEO of the NAIF—the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—Ms Laurie Walker. A lot of the focus with regard to the NAIF is on whether they will or won't—or were going to or not—potentially help fund and loan money to Adani, or to some other company, for a rail line to open up the Galilee Basin. I'm going to put coal to one side for a minute, because I was particularly concerned by another piece of evidence given by the CEO of the NAIF to the Senate committee inquiry—indeed, in response to a question by Senator Watt. This was with regard to the so-called tourism hub in Cairns—the Global Tourism Hub, excuse me—which is basically just a front for another new casino. The head of the NAIF gave explicit evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, saying that the NAIF is collaborating with the Queensland government on that project. She said:
We think that's an incredibly exciting project.
It seems like the NAIF is already totally on board with this project. Indeed, the head of the NAIF then explicitly linked it, as does the Queensland government's own propaganda, with the Queen's Wharf casino development in Brisbane. The head of the NAIF, Ms Laurie Walker, said the casino proposal in the so-called tourism hub in Cairns is:
… a very innovative structure. It's mimicking what the Queensland government have done in Queen's Wharf in Brisbane, and there were some fantastic outcomes for the government in that.
I'm not sure what the 'fantastic outcomes' for the Queensland government were, but they certainly weren't fantastic outcomes for the people of Brisbane.
The outcome was 13 hectares of public land given over to private developers, including a very rare piece of open green space in Queens Park in the CBD that is now going to have a mall access way right through the middle of it. This is a park that, apart from being open space, has also been used for numerous political rallies and protests, including most notably some very large rallies with regard to marriage equality and climate change over the years. So we're seeing this alienation of public space, and we're seeing public land being given over to private developers. That is the common thread for what the state government is trying to do in Cairns, where we have 4.4 hectares of state-owned waterfront land in Cairns, in the Cityport precinct, potentially to be given over to and controlled by private developers who will put a casino at its heart.
Again, like Brisbane, we're having totally inadequate consultations. The only choice was between one casino proponent or another, with a four-week opportunity for minimal public input that was ignored anyway. We've had the same thing: a little pop-up consultation place in the shopping centre in Cairns over the Christmas period. This is a project that the NAIF should stay well away from, just as they should stay away from destructive coal projects.
Urban Planning
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (20:00): Tonight I'd like to talk with the chamber about our cities. Today, 50 per cent of the world's populations live in city environments. When done badly, these can separate us as communities. They can have a massively detrimental impact upon the environment. They can embody, in short, some of the worst excesses and most profound failures of the vulture capitalist system which now so dominates the global environment. But, when done properly, cities and their designs can embody the very best and most innovative qualities of the human spirit. They can bring us together and embody principles of environmental sustainability and social justice which I believe live at the heart of the true Australian dream, if such a thing still exists.
In many nations of the world—in Germany and Sweden, for instance—this opportunity of cities and their ability to transform our presence here on planet Earth into something which lives with the planet instead of against it, and which brings us together rather than pulls us apart, is something which is recognised by government and actively invested in. Here in Australia, unfortunately, there is a profound absence of imagination when it comes to sustainable cities planning, in every aspect, from housing to transport to social cooperatives and different methods of trading essential resources. This absence on the field, if you like, has led to a situation where local communities, local governments and the private sector have had to pick up the ball and run with it as far as they can.
I'd like to share with you one example from my home state of WA which sits, not surprisingly, within the boundaries of the City of Fremantle, which is proudly committed to being 100 per cent carbon neutral by 2025. I'm talking, of course, of the WGV project in White Gum Valley. It's a housing development which embodies some of the very forefront of international thinking in the space of sustainable cities and community design. It is 70 per cent more energy efficient and water efficient than a design in the more traditional style; it incorporates elements of social housing and community housing at its core; it brings in elements of culture and community by partnering with local artists to create spaces for creative activity; and it utilises a world-leading peer-to-peer power-sharing technology which has been pioneered right here in WA by Power Ledger. If anybody in the Senate would like to take an opportunity to just have a quick look at what that company has achieved in the last 12 months, I think you'll agree with me in saying that Elon Musk might soon have some WA home-grown competition on his hands.
These developments show us what's possible when people in government, in the community and in the private sector apply themselves to the space of sustainable cities with energy, vision and commitment. I cannot fathom what we might be able to achieve as a nation in this space if that same vigour were embodied in our national government. This is not just an issue of environment or society; it is fundamentally also an issue of inclusion, because, of course, the built environment has such a profound impact on the way in which our society is able, or otherwise, to include all of its members. During my time in this chamber, I intend to build upon the work of my predecessor Scott Ludlam in this space to ensure that, when we talk about sustainable cities, we talk not only of environmental and social impact but also of ensuring that, as we rebuild, we build out the discrimination which is so often at the heart of the built environment. I thank the chamber for its time.
Defence Industry
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (20:05): I rise in the Australian Senate tonight to put on record the Greens' opposition to this government's plans to turn Australia into one of the top 10 weapons manufacturers and arms exporters in the world. I rise in this chamber tonight to state the Greens' opposition to moves over the last two years by this government to turn Australia's economy into an economy based on war and not on peace, innovation, medical technology and renewable energy.
I condemn in the strongest possible terms this government's plans to loan nearly $4 billion to weapons and arms manufacturers in this country. We've recently taken billions of dollars away from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that would have gone into investment in innovation in clean jobs and a clean economy. The $4 billion we are loaning to arms manufacturers and exporters is more than this country's total aid budget, which Mr Tim Costello from World Vision recently pointed out is absolutely essential to building peace in our region. We've also suffered $11 billion in cuts in foreign aid to our region since 2014.
The only plan I have seen from the government is to spend money on building new weapons industries and arms manufacturers. We call on this government to cease its plans to turn Australia into a mercenary nation of arms dealers, which contribute to the dangerous and destructive effects that the global arms trade has in fuelling conflicts around this planet. I want to put on the record tonight that there's no clearer difference between the Greens party and the Labor Party than in Labor's support for this plan that the government has put forward for this nation. Last week I moved a motion in this Senate and Labor got up in this chamber and tried to out chomp the government on its plans to put more money into weapons manufacturing and arms deals.
In the last budget this government made the single biggest increase in defence spending in this country since the Second World War. This plan to turn Australia into a nation of arms dealers comes on top of a record increase in defence spending—hundreds of billions of dollars going into procurement in defence around this country. When there is no visible threat in our region, according to our own white paper, one has to ask: why? Is this because we've signed away the ability for governments to provide assistance to industry, to help subsidise industry and to invest in local industry, because of the countless free trade deals this government signed us up to—free trade deals that conveniently carve out for all the partners of these trade deals the ability of the government to invest in defence technologies and defence industries? Is that why we're being forced to go down this path?
I remind the chamber and fellow senators of the words of Mr Tim Costello. He said that, if Australia goes down this path—this increased militarisation of not only our government departments, like Operation Sovereign Borders, but also now our economy—we will be 'exporting death' and 'profiting from bloodshed', and Mr Costello is a man who has seen plenty of that in the work that he's done around the planet.
This is not the Australia that I want to be part of. This is not what the Australian people want. Let me say very clearly here tonight: if it takes only the Greens to oppose this and build a campaign against this move to militarise our economy, we will. There's so much more that this country could do to create jobs and create prosperity. Where's the spending this government promised on the infrastructure we need around this country? Where's the money going into medical technology, agricultural technology and clean energy? They're the jobs of the future. Creating weapons and arms will contribute only to instability, more refugees and profiting from blood, violence and war.
Workplace Relations
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:10): I rise tonight to share some good news with the Senate. Tomorrow, workers at Griffin Coal in Collie, all members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, will return to work after more than 180 days of protected industrial action and two years of protracted negotiations. Senator Bridget McKenzie knows the situation well because she visited Collie with me when Senate hearings about these very issues took place there.
Tomorrow brings an end to the longest-running industrial dispute in the history of Western Australia's coalmining industry. It is an incredibly hard fought victory for these workers. They have voted up an agreement that wins them back their family friendly rosters, a liveable wage and their entitlements at the rate they were accrued at—all of which were under threat when the Fair Work Commission terminated their agreement in 2016 after an application by Griffin Coal. We know that that took them back to the base award rate, not only on their official wages but also in terms of their accrued entitlements. They faced pay cuts of up to 46 per cent. They were being forced to work on FIFO-like rosters—even though they were a settled residential community—on low award wages while missing out on important family time. They were at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars of entitlements accrued over many decades.
Community and volunteering groups lost their volunteers and community supporters, local businesses felt the pinch because these workers and their families had much less money to spend, and mums and dads worried for a long time about how to put food on the table. Some of the families told me they could no longer afford their houses after such a significant pay cut. At the same time, as the values of their homes dropped because of the uncertainty in the local economy, they couldn't sell either. All of this is because of a Fair Work system that is broken—a system that's designed to benefit wealthy multinational companies at the expense of Australian workers and Australian communities. We want to see this fixed. The rules are broken, and we need to change the rules.
Ever since, these workers and their families, and the local community, have fought for the future of the town of Collie. Last year I hosted some wonderful Griffin community action group members who'd come here to Canberra to tell their story. They spoke to MPs and senators about the impact of the ongoing dispute on their families and their community. They fought, and no doubt they will continue to fight, for the change workers right across the country need to see: change that would allow workers to truly negotiate in good faith with their employers about wages and conditions. Following their advocacy, and that of many other workers across the country in the same situation, Labor committed to finding a solution to this problem, to amend the section of the Fair Work Act that allows companies to terminate agreements whilst bargaining. We must restore balance to workplace negotiations in this country.
Finally, it is only because of the solidarity of the union and the community that this win has been possible; otherwise these workers would have been left in an impossible, no-win situation. I want to acknowledge the AMWU members in Collie and their families and thank them for their advocacy and their commitment to fighting for this important win for their community.
Midgley, Mrs Margaret Roberta
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (20:14): Last Saturday I facilitated a memorial service at the Hobart botanical gardens for my dear friend Margaret Roberta Midgley, nee Sheen. Margi died on Friday, 2 February, one day before her 72nd birthday. After the service her family and I scattered her ashes in the Hobart botanical gardens at the place where a seat is to be placed in her memory, in the area where she loved to sit, where she felt most at peace.
Margaret and I were the very best of friends for the last 30 years. I first met her in 1988, when we both joined the Hobart Family Day Care Scheme. We went to a coffee morning for new carers and started to chat to each other and the rest, as they say, is history. Margi and Roger had recently moved to Hobart from NSW, having spent some time there after meeting on the ship when they immigrated as ten-pound Poms and then got married.
Margi and I hit it off right from the very first. It didn't take us long to discover we shared concerns about the conditions that family day carers worked under. We were concerned about the lack of appropriate remuneration, considering the responsibility of minding other people's children. We were concerned about being allegedly self-employed but controlled by three levels of government. We were concerned about the lack of access to any accredited training. I must admit that TAFE Tasmania was not very understanding in the beginning about that, but we won that issue, and we went on to win a few more in the areas of training. In fact, we went on to both participate in writing training for childcare workers in Tassie. We also worried about the lack of appropriate family-day-care-specific training, which I just alluded to, and the lack of recognition by the general community about the roles and responsibilities of family day carers.
We were so concerned that we approached the municipal employees union. They were the local government union that were responsible for a number of family day care schemes and coordinators. We approached them about our concerns and we asked them for support. At the time, family day carers in other states were starting to voice the same concerns, and the union were happy to assist us in our cause. The quid pro quo was that they would use the Tasmanian family day care issue in the federal industrial dispute in two states, those being Victoria and Tasmania. Due to time constraints I won't go into all that that involved, but it was the beginning of a few new friendships and a large part of both of our lives.
Many of our childcare peers were of the view that if you worked with children you couldn't be outspoken—you couldn't possibly rock the cradle and rock the boat at the same time. Well, Margi and I did. Between us, we managed to change quite a few people's thoughts regarding that issue. We became known as the tenacious terriers, so named by the union guys because we couldn't or wouldn't let go of the issues.
Initially, it was just Margi and me with this cause, and then we were joined by another woman who became a friend, Rosalie, who worked in another scheme but under the same rules. I tend to think we were 30 years ahead of our time in the charge to make sure that childcare workers are suitably recognised. We'd spend hours most nights, after our charges had gone home, on the phone or visiting each other, writing letters to whoever we thought might assist us about our concerns—politicians of all levels and from all parties, childcare organisations, family day carers themselves, councillors in local governments, and TAFEs. We'd bat ideas off each other, seek advice from each other, drink lots of coffee and sometimes wine, talk over each other, laugh together and at each other and get indignant about some wrongdoing by someone else, but, most importantly, we would support each other.
About 12 months after I went to the municipal employees union to work as an industrial officer, I managed to get funding to train and support long-term-unemployed women who wanted to work in the childcare industry. The then state secretary employed Margaret, who by then had completed her Diploma of Sociology after a number of years of part-time study. She was employed to assist me.
A few months later, when I became a full-time union organiser, Margi became the lead coordinator. Over the next few years, the project went on to place over 350 people in a range of local government areas, both indoors and outdoors, in Tasmania. She did an amazing job. When the project finally ended, Margi was asked to become an ASU industrial officer, and she did this job until her retirement, due to ill health, in 2006. We worked together in the union until I left to go to state parliament as an adviser, and even after that we remained firm friends. We'd still talk on the phone often. We'd have coffee or lunch together frequently.
Through the decades, we watched our families grow up and talked through the good bits and not-so-good bits. We attended our children's various birthday parties and weddings and adult birthday parties and Christmas parties and barbecues and dinners together—although, I must admit, we went to dinner there a lot more than they were at our house because they were much better cooks than us! In our 30 years of friendship we spent a lot of time together and we talked a lot. Some weeks, especially when we both worked for the union, we travelled together and spent so much time together that we used to wonder what our families looked like. We were a team. We shared so much and we had similar values—though Margi was more left wing than me and, to be frank, a bit more compassionate. I was the hardhead of the two. It was often a good cop/bad cop scenario, and we used to even use that sometimes when dealing with our own children.
When I think about Margi, I think about how big-hearted and generous she was, how she encouraged everyone to be the best they could, how compassionate, fun, honest, creative, intelligent, hardworking, strong-willed, tenacious, obstinate and passionate she was. Over the many years that Margi was a proud member of the MEU and, following the union amalgamations, of the Australian Services Union, she was a member, a delegate, a coordinator and then an industrial officer. She worked hard and she gave her best to the members and to the union. She was also, until recently, a loyal ALP Tasmania branch member and, over many years, represented the MEU, and then the ASU, many, many times at ALP state conferences. Of course, she helped with my political campaigns too. She was one of the people who, when it comes to campaigns, often go under the radar of the state office. She'd stuff envelopes for hours on end and she'd letterbox. She'd get her whole family involved in these activities. She'd also cook muffins and food or get us bickies and cheese and wine to keep us going.
Sadly, my beautiful friend was diagnosed some years ago with early onset vascular dementia. Over the past year, this progressed quite quickly. I know she was often sad and confused, and they really weren't easy times for anyone. It's not a nice disease. The phone calls from Margi stopped but, when I rang Roger, her husband, to see how things were, he would, if he was with Margi—which he was so often—put the phone on speaker and we'd have a little chat. I'd visit her as often as I could. We'd have a hug and I'd talk about old times or tell her what I was doing at work or how the family was going. Sometimes, we'd still share a joke or a laugh. I'm not sure that she understood me all the time, or even remembered me being there once I'd left. But she always seemed pleased to see me. So I hope my visits made her happy, if only for a short time.
Margi was a true and loyal friend, and she put high store in those values. I'm sure her friendship contributed to who I am today, and her personal support certainly helped me get where I am today. I just want to say, before I finish, how fortunate and truly honoured I've been to share Margi's life, her death and her family. It was always obvious to everyone that Margi loved her family more than anything else, no matter what was happening. Her husband, Roger, was the love of her life. As in all families, life often wasn't smooth but she loved them all no matter what.
Yes, I'm sad that Margi died. But I'm also relieved she's no longer suffering. I'm fortunate to have had the opportunity to say goodbye to her and tell her how much she meant to me and to spend a large part of the last few weeks with her and the family while she was receiving palliative care. To Margi's beautiful family—Roger, Erica, Michael, Jake, Peter, Mandy, Tom, Jack, Gemma and Adam—thank you. You have been so extraordinarily generous in allowing me to spend so much time with Margi and to be part of the journey of her death. There's no doubt I will miss my dear Margi enormously. There is a special place in my heart just for her. I will remember her with love and with gratitude. I will remember her when her heart was full of spirit. And, of course, I will always remember her final words to me: 'I love you too, my dear friend.'
Tasmania
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (20:24): I thank Senator Bilyk for sharing that really poignant speech with the Senate tonight. I take great pride in being a senator for the state of Tasmania, and an even greater pride in being Tasmanian. You know, we're lucky down there. We live in one of the most beautiful parts of the world—if not the most beautiful part of the world—with magnificent natural wilderness, mountains, forests and coastlines that the rest of the country can only dream about. And I've no doubt that the rest of the country—and, indeed, the rest of the world—is starting to catch on about everything Tasmania has to offer. Tasmanian people are kind hearted, generous and resilient, and we regularly donate far more per capita to charitable appeals than any other state or territory in the country.
We're ready, right now in Tasmania, to set a standard the rest of the world can follow. If we make the right decision in the next few years, we can offer an unrivalled quality of life to every man, woman and child who's lucky enough to call Tasmania home. Our island can be a centre of creativity where people are free to choose their own goals and make their own choices in life, surrounded by beautiful forests, coastline and natural environment and a friendly and welcoming people.
With that in mind, I conducted a very small democratic experiment and asked on my Facebook page what people wanted to see happen in Tasmania, not in the short term—an electoral cycle or two—but over the next 20 years. I want to share some of their hopes, ideas and dreams with you tonight.
Carole Benham says she wants to see 'a welcoming, inclusive community powered by renewable energy, sustainable enterprises and a thriving hub of creativity'. Bob Moon called for 'water security, healthy river systems and public transport options'. Meg Borg also wants better public transport, whilst Sarah-Jane Clarke called for passenger trains in Devonport, Launceston and Hobart. Robert O'Keefe says: 'Tasmania's climate, clean power and low cost of living make it perfect for data centres and IT work. We should be building a nation-leading IT industry.' Liz Cameron says: 'Tassie has to save its wilderness. That will be its biggest drawcard as more and more people seek the balm it provides.' Larry Forbes says we should evacuate Manus Island and Nauru detention centres and resettle the detainees in Tasmania. Alex Martin calls for closed-loop recycling, while Leaps Vincent says what the state needs is 'renewables, renewables, renewables, no pokies, no fish farms and transparent political donations'. With what I'm sure some colleagues would agree was mildly unparliamentary language, Gustav Risberg called industrial fish farms 'the most critical assault on our island'. Finally, Aaron Miller says, 'I'm not from Tassie, but an AFL team is overdue.' Well, whether you're from Tassie or not, Aaron, welcome to the fight for a Tassie AFL team. I can only say, 'Hear, hear,' to you and many of the other people who shared their hopes for Tasmania.
So our people, our Tasmanians, want our state to be clean, green and as welcoming as they are. It doesn't always seem this way down in Tassie, but all of those ideas are within our state's grasp if we want to create our own future and make our own choices. I hearken back to the days of the Franklin Dam dispute, when all the political power seemed locked up in the hands of the two establishment parties and the big corporate interests that then ran—and to a large degree, unfortunately, still run—Tasmania. It never seemed, back in those days, that the Franklin Dam could be stopped. Later on, more recently, it never seemed that the Gunns Ltd pulp mill could be stopped. It never seemed that Tasmania could be such a hub for the arts with a world-class gallery like MONA, which seemed so unthinkable just a few decades ago. It seemed impossible 20 years ago that marriage equality could happen in Tasmania, but every single electorate in Tasmania supported it in the recent postal survey, and Tasmania effectively finished equal second of all the Australian states in that survey. We are far, far more progressive in Tasmania than the north islanders like to give us credit for. A few months ago, it seemed impossible that we could break the shackles of poker machines in our pubs and clubs, but we stand now on the cusp of achieving that. At the moment, it seems impossible that our state could be represented with our own standalone team in the AFL or our own standalone AFL women's team, but we'll keep pushing for it, and one day we're going to get it. All of those progressions start with the simple step of people standing up, having a crack and demanding that our state be run in the interests of the many, not the privileged few.
It's a rapidly changing world at the moment. What we see happening on our news on a regular basis can be frightening, but if you wanted to design somewhere to thrive and prosper in the challenging, rapidly changing world of the 21st century you'd basically end up designing Tasmania. It's those places that are the smallest and the most networked and that have the most tight-knit communities that can change rapidly and adapt best. Our size allows us to be nimble, to react more quickly and to work together using our established communities and networks to maximise our advantages. And what advantages they are: some of the cleanest air in the world and some of the cleanest, most abundant fresh water in the world; our spectacular nature—our forests, our coastlines, our mountains, our button grass plains and our carbon-rich forests; our magnificent Aboriginal cultural heritage; our world-leading expertise in renewable energy and in agriculture; our fantastic and productive soils; and the respect and love for the place that we all call home.
Tasmania can be a beacon of sustainability not just for the rest of the country but for the rest of the world. It can be a place that is respected, loved and treasured, a place that people look at from all around the world and all around the rest of the country and wish they lived there, wish they were lucky enough to enjoy the advantages Tasmania has. When you ask the people of Tasmania to think of something greater than themselves, more often than not they will oblige. When they oblige, we have to listen. When we, the people that make decisions, listen, Tasmania as a state can achieve all the opportunities that stand before it to be a beacon of prosperity and sustainability in a rapidly changing and challenging world.
Middle East
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (20:32): I rise today to express my deep concern about the ongoing occupation of Palestine and the current global discourse which risks permanently ending any chance for peace. I visited Israel and the West Bank of Palestine late last year with the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. It was my first time in the region. What I saw was both horrifying and tragic. Australia has been a friend of Israel since its creation. As a friend, we must respectfully tell our friends when their actions are wrong. We must not appease their actions. We must not stand idly by when our friends are taking deliberate actions that they claim promote peace but in fact undermine any chance for sustained peace. We must call them out and help them find a different path. Where Israeli law is clearly in breach of international law, we must be firm, because Israel is becoming increasingly isolated. As a friend, we must not allow the last chances of a long-term peaceful resolution to be lost.
Whether it's the ongoing advance of settlements into the West Bank, the use of military courts to intimidate and denigrate young Palestinians, the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip, or the complete loss of any freedoms that millions of Palestinians face because their lives are controlled by the Israeli military, the actions of the Israeli government undermine peace on each stage. It is not even repetitive action on an orderly timetable; rather, the Israeli government practises what could be considered deliberate chaos that is clearly designed to confuse, to limit opportunities and to eliminate hope. At their core, the occupation and actions of Israel are a theft of time. My experience reinforced this dilemma. Each day Palestinians of all ages face the gut-wrenching fear of the unknown. Their stop at the checkpoint may be quick or it may take hours; indeed, the checkpoint may not be open. Their utilities may work or they may not—every single day, the unknown. Yet they try to plan their day, their lives, try to hold down work, try to keep their families and communities together, and try not to get into trouble. With each day, the individual Palestinian can do nothing but do their best and try not to lose hope. But it is clear that, if the current trajectory is not slowed, any hope for a sustained peace in the region will be lost.
Fifty years after the end of the Six-Day War and the beginning of the occupation, we are at yet another tipping point. Some even say we are beyond the tipping point. Action from friends is needed now. On the visit we went to Jerusalem, Hebron, Ramallah, the Bir Nabala enclave, the Jordan Valley and Tel Aviv. Through the tremendous on-the-ground contacts of APAN and the generosity of the people we met, we were able to gain a tremendous understanding of the tragedy—a tragedy that too few people outside of the occupied Palestinian territories are aware of. We met Palestinian and Israeli leaders, politicians, and, importantly, we met a number of extraordinary Palestinians who, despite all the adversity and all the chaos and control, keep living their lives as best they can.
The West Bank is divided into three areas. Areas A and B are under full and part control of the Palestinian Authority, but these areas are less than a quarter of the West Bank. Area C is under full control of the Israeli military. We had lunch with a family whose lives are surrounded by settlers and walls. They live in a tiny enclave surrounded by area C. Their every movement is watched and monitored, and to even purchase basic supplies they must pass through a checkpoint, which may or may not be open. For many families, it is impossible to visit a hospital after curfew. And, all the while, settlements are approved. Yet Palestinians can't access water, medicine, safety—the basics of life. The walls are strategically placed around areas to isolate key natural resources—homes, roads and utilities. It is methodical and it is beyond cruel.
We visited a kindergarten. We learnt that children can't play in the streets, and they must carry mobile phones—not for happy snaps, games, or contacting friends, but for security, to create a video record of any actions of the police and settlers. Even the toys for the children at the kindergarten had to be smuggled in piece by piece in the dark of night. We heard that children as young as six were threatened, intimidated and harassed simply for who they are. Despite the fact that they pose no security threat to anyone, this is a childhood of fear, of unimaginable uncertainty, and at a point in one's life when you need security and safety, not guns in your face.
We heard from a family about their 22-year-old son. He was harassed by some settlers on his walk to work. He crossed the road to avoid the confrontation. They shot and killed him. Then they planted a knife on the young man's body. Even though all of this was filmed, the perpetrators face no justice. The family had no recourse. They were left without a son—for nothing.
And yet the response of the new President of the United States, Mr Trump, is not to try and work with Israel and Palestine to find a way through this tragedy. No. Mr Trump has decided to move his country's embassy to Jerusalem, up-ending decades of international resolve that embassies be located outside of Jerusalem to recognise the disputed nature of the territory. Mr Trump's move has rightly been met with global condemnation. Clearly, it inflames tensions both within Israel and Palestine and in the broader region. In the days after, young Palestinians were protesting President Trump's decision in the town of Nabi Salih in the West Bank. The process turned violent. A 14-year-old boy was shot in the face and severely wounded. His cousin, a 16-year-old woman, Ahed Tamimi, along with her mother and cousin, approached the two soldiers outside their family home. Tamimi slapped one of the soldiers in the face. A video of the incident was published on social media. Tamimi was arrested days later and, two months later, is still incarcerated. A 16-year-old girl has been in jail for two months. Tamini's trial is due to commence this week. She is one of thousands of Palestinian children who are subjected to military courts. Tamini was unarmed. What she did was probably wrong, but Israel is clearly in breach of international law.
What I learnt in Palestine is that these children face intense interrogation sessions of at least half a day, of at least 10 to 12 hours, and while the youth is tired. Interrogation usually occurs for nine to 10 hours after arrest. They're given no food or drink. Their wrists hurt after being tied with plastic cable ties. Their wrists swell and the ties get tighter. The pain is intense. They are alone, the child and an interrogator, for hours at length. And I was told that once a youth denies the charge, their interrogation starts again. The youth may be the recipient of multiple interrogations, and they face psychological interrogations where they are baited to rat on their mates.
After days of interrogation, they are brought before the military court. This is when they see their lawyer for the first time. Unfortunately, very little can be done at this time as the youth likely said too much during interrogation and faces months in jail. Of course, it's quicker to plead guilty rather than challenge the charge, which can take up to six months without bail. I was told a majority of cases end in plea-bargains, months in jail, large fines and suspended sentences hanging over the youths' heads. They are too scared to do anything. I was told quite firmly that the military court system is not pro-Palestinian and it is not pro-Israeli; it is a rule-of-law aberration.
Israel is breaching the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which it is a state party. The convention states that the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child must be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Months in jail, interrogation, no legal access: it's wrong, it's unlawful and it's not justice. These are children.
My week in Israel and the West Bank was coordinated by Lisa Arnold and Wendy Turner from APAN. I thank them for their ongoing advocacy and for the seamlessness of the trip in what is a difficult place to negotiate. I have to believe that there is a way forward, but it is very clear that time is running out.
Transurban Group
Senator RICE (Victoria) (20:42): You may have caught up with news today that Transurban Group's net profits for the six months to June rose 280 per cent, from $88 million to $331 million. How about that? Transurban run 13 out of the 15 toll roads in Australia. City Link in Melbourne is by far its most profitable. Those profits come straight out of your pockets.
Sadly, what we haven't heard in the news today is any announcement from the Victorian government that these soaring profits will trigger an urgent review of Transurban's finances to see whether it is making 'super profits'. If it was found that they were, it would trigger an early exit clause within the CityLink contract and return the road to public ownership. The lack of such an announcement is yet another indication that the Victorian Labor government have essentially privatised transport planning in Victoria. They are sanguine about such massive profits as they work hand in hand with Transurban to build another massive toll road that will add to these profits, the West Gate tollway and tunnel. In short, this is a road designed to create profits for Transurban, not to address Melbourne's transport needs.
But without any touch of irony, Transurban chief executive, Scott Charlton, warned today of 'bad behaviour' from the early 2000s returning to the tollway building business, when returns were 'front ended' and where external traffic consultants 'increased and justified' traffic forecasts. He was apparently claiming that Transurban are innocent of such behaviour in comparison to their competitors. I think he's a hypocrite. Notably, however, what Mr Charlton is hypocritically criticising is echoing the news from a fortnight ago, when the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics released its Ex-post economic evaluation of national road investment projects. BITRE's report was scathing. It noted that cost-benefit analysis of road projects as practiced is 'prone to errors' and that there is 'much room for improvement' if they are to be used as an effective tool for project prioritisation.
The BITRE findings also included that the net present value of the projects they studied was overestimated by significant margins due to overestimation of road user benefits and inaccurate traffic forecasts, and that the base cases for projects suffer from overestimation of travel time cost savings. To overcome these concerns, BITRE strongly recommended that independent reviews of traffic modelling results should be mandatory for any cost-benefit analysis. That's where this story gets really interesting, because in contrast to their disingenuous spiel, their line that Transurban are the good guys and the poster child for investors, Transurban are up to their neck doing a dodgy deal that will increase their obscene profits still further.
The exact problems highlighted in the BITRE report are what Transurban is doing in cahoots with the Victorian government to justify their $6 billion West Gate tollway tunnel. Experienced transport planner William McDougall made this clear with his testimony to our Senate inquiry into toll roads last year. Mr McDougall has over 35 years of experience working on major transport projects and was employed by the Victorian government to support the independent peer review that was done of the economic and transport modelling. He lost his job when he was critical of the work that had been done. Mr McDougall told us that the modelling the Victorian government used in assessing the proposal for the West Gate Tunnel Project produced higher forecast traffic flows than it should have, the cost-benefit analysis was distorted in ways that increased the assessed benefits, it inflated valuations of time saved by motorists, it downplayed induced traffic and it treated land use changes in ways which produced more favourable results in the early years of the project. He concluded that the work of assessing the West Gate tunnel and other projects was actually a process of justifying the road after the decision was made, and considers that there was at least optimism bias and possibly deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of traffic forecasts and the economic benefits that flow from them in the appraisal process. This sounds eerily like the criticisms in the BITRE report, and exactly what Transurban's CEO was disingenuously criticising this morning.
'At least there was an independent peer review,' I hear you say. But the Victorian government has refused point-blank to make this independent review public. If Transurban are so confident that they are squeaky clean, they could choose to make this peer review public themselves. Funnily enough, they haven't. Here will be the news, I can guarantee, from Senate estimates in two weeks time when I once again ask Infrastructure Australia whether the Victorian government have shared that peer review with them: the answer will be no. I've asked this question at every estimates session for the last two years. Every time, Infrastructure Australia have agreed that it would be valuable if the Victorian government were to share the peer review but they've decided not to. Meanwhile, the Victorian Labor government is barrelling full bore ahead despite not having got through the parliament planning approval for its road, despite not having got through the parliament its agreement to extend Transurban's CityLink concession and even though it knows it has not got the support for either of these critical approvals in the upper house. The Victorian government said that if it doesn't get its legislation through the parliament it will override the need for planning scheme approval, and it will saddle all Victorians with billions of dollars of debt for this road. This is everything that is wrong with transport planning.
There was other Transurban news from last week that will not come as a surprise in this context, and that was the release of the political donations data. This showed that Transurban have paid the Labor Party over $28,000 in donations in 2016-17—in effect, buying political influence to get the policy outcomes they want. But that's not to say we'd be better off with the Liberals. The Liberal Party also received tens of thousands of dollars from Transurban and also has a serious toll road addiction. In fact, the Victorian Liberal Party's determination to knock off the West Gate tollway tunnel isn't, sadly, because they've seen the light and want to invest in the transport solutions that would solve our congestion and pollution problems—namely, public transport, walking, cycling and freight rail. Instead they want to go back to East West Link, which was roundly rejected by voters at the last Victorian election.
I understand Transurban CEO Scott Charlton has today accused the Greens of being hypocritical and playing cheap politics by trying to kill off the West Gate Tunnel. No, Mr Charlton, no. There is so much that is wrong with this road. It's not just that it siphons billions of dollars into Transurban's pockets and that in doing so it starves public transport of funding. It will funnel thousands more cars into the streets of inner Melbourne. It will destroy Footscray's Maribyrnong River frontage. It will destroy the environment of Footscray Road with a double-decker freeway overhead. It'll cut a swathe through prime inner-city redevelopment sites, leaving them with tens of thousands of cars and trucks cutting through them every day. It's massively expensive transport, really bad for the luckless commuters who have to shell out for tolls which escalate higher and higher every year. It'll result in more air pollution, cancer- and asthma-causing particulates and more carbon pollution, which is causing dangerous global warming. And it will increase the pressure for yet more and more expensive tax-and-toll-guzzling roads just like it. It will not just be North East Link; stay tuned, yes, for the East West Link again, the outer metropolitan ring road and more. If we don't invest in public transport that gives people the choice of getting out of their cars then we will have to keep building these massive roads at massive cost.
There is a way forward out of this mess for Melbourne. It's the way forward that the federal government should be funding. As well as building metro rail, we should be committing to metro 2 and fast, frequent bus services linking the suburbs. We should be building airport rail. We should be fast-tracking rail efficiencies so we can have trains at least every 10 minutes. We should be fast-tracking getting freight off our roads and onto rail. We should build the West Gate ramps, a much more modest but just as effective project to get trucks off residential streets in Footscray and Yarraville. It really will be news when state and federal governments, Labor and Liberal, finally see sense and join the Greens and the rest of the world in building transport systems that work for people that support clean, green, sustainable cities. I know it's going to happen eventually, so why can't we just get on with it?
Nowra MotoPlex
Wombats
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (20:52): The proposed Yerriyong motorcycling complex is not just another local development in New South Wales. It provides an insight into the appalling activities of the Liberals in the Shoalhaven area. Why was the former member for Gilmore, Mrs Ann Sudmalis, able to secure almost $10 million in grant funds for the Yerriyong motorcycling complex when the development had not been given consent? Why was the then mayor of the Shoalhaven, Mrs Joanna Gash, Liberal Party stalwart and long-term friend of Mrs Sudmalis, pushing a development on land she was warned from the outset had significant environmental sites? Why did both Sudmalis and Gash continue to pursue this project on such an inappropriate site? Has Sudmalis made any attempt to seek changes to the Commonwealth threatened species list or legislation?
The people of the Shoalhaven deserve answers to these questions. Why has neither of them ever apologised for the reputational damage they've inflicted on Mr Alan Stephenson, a recognised orchid expert? Mr Stephenson is not a member of the Greens. This is a classic case of Sudmalis and Gash not owning their own mistakes, pretending to be the victims of some sort of environmental plot and blaming the Greens—or 'Greenies', as they call those whom they scapegoat.
The Yerriyong motor complex saga started when Shoalhaven City Council tasked a subcommittee with advancing the issue and finding land. In 2012, Gash, then the federal member for Gilmore, was elected mayor. She was determined to deliver the project to help tout herself as an economic saviour for the Shoalhaven. Much fanfare and positive press was given to those who got behind her idea. Shoalhaven City Council's economic development officer was tasked with finding the land. The officer ruled out some cleared land east of the proposed site. This land was considered too hard because of compulsory acquisition and high-voltage powerlines. The Crown land, despite the fact that it had some environmental constraints, was considered an easier target. This land was also touted as a cheaper option, at $500,000, compared to approximately $7 million for the acquisitions. As a comparison, Bathurst city council has compulsorily acquired millions of dollars' worth of cleared farmland to build their racing complex, as they perceived it as having such a high economic worth. The deal cooked up for Motorcycling New South Wales at the Yerriyong land was for the council to remain the owner and Motorcycling New South Wales to pay a $5,000 per annum lease.
According to the Environmental Defenders Office, New South Wales has probably the worst environmental legislation in history. The laws do little to protect the environment. However, despite these poor legal protections, and $1 million spent on studies of the Yerriyong motorcycling land, Motorcycling New South Wales was unable to secure definitive approval. The organisation then walked away from the project. This was early last year. Then the blame game really started.
Orchard specialist Alan Stephenson was thrust into the centre of the controversy, as he had located additional threatened species on the land in question. After being requested by the Parma Yerriyong Community Group to review the consultants environmental work, a single orchard was not the only show stopper, with many other species identified, and over 500 hollow-bearing trees also assessed.
Remember, Gash had been warned that the site she favoured had environmentally significant sites, but Gash did not heed the warnings. Instead of owning her own mistake, it was easier to blame Stephenson and try to undermine his expertise. After Gash's criticism, Stephenson received all manner of personal threats, including death threats. The former Gilmore MP joined the pack of blamers and also got stuck into Stevenson. Neither Gash nor Gilmore has ever apologised for not just their words but the hate they helped to incite towards Stevenson and his family.
Less than six months after the formal withdrawal by Motorcycling New South Wales from the proposed Yerriyong motor complex, Gash teamed up with her arch political enemy, Mr Greg Watson, to try to revive the motorcycle complex project on the same site, despite multiple warnings about the environmental limitations. Sudmalis waved her flag in support. Just two months earlier, Gash and Watson had been at each other's throats with serious code of conduct complaints pertaining to the local government election of 2016.
By the time Watson and Gash teamed up, there were no financial backers for the motorcycle complex, the grant from the Commonwealth had expired and the money redistributed to other Gilmore projects. It also became known that the New South Wales state, and the required government biobanking certificates, could cost in excess of $10 million to purchase, and Shoalhaven City Council, it would appear, would be expected to be the sponsor.
Instead of owning their mistakes and apologising to the community, to Mr Stephenson and to Motorcycling New South Wales for persisting with the wrong location, Gash, Watson and Sudmalis continue to make out that they are the heroes. They are inciting anger and engaging in environmentalist bashing. They might think they are on a win-win but, sadly, the community are the ones who are losing.
On another matter, today The Guardian had this information at the head of an article about Australia's extinction crisis:
More than 1,800 plant and animal species and ecological communities are at risk of extinction right now.
I was recently in South Australia meeting people who work with the southern hairy-nosed wombat. I've got to say, having heard their story and read that article, I became so concerned that this wonderful marsupial might be one of those animals becoming extinct.
In 2016 the southern hairy-nosed wombat's IUCN listing was changed from 'least concern' to 'near threatened'. When you look at what's happening to them in South Australia this is so real and so serious. Bulldozing wombat burrows is a favoured means of management in the mid-north of South Australia, because ideally it destroys wombats and burrows in one activity. It kills them by burial. They can die through injury, they can die because they're crushed or they can die a slow, excruciating death because of lack of oxygen as they are literally buried under the soil. People say they can dig out. They do not dig upwards. These animals are dying, and dying in large numbers.
This method of killing wombats—and this is legal—also destroys complete ecosystems. The burrows or warrens of wombats have become home ecosystems to so many other species. Bulldozing burrows has been used to remove what are called the 'outlying populations' and supposedly to encourage their movement away from farming land. That's the excuse. But the loss of the outlying populations leads to a whole number of problems. We lose the vital connectivity between populations, which can result in isolation, cause inbreeding and further endanger the species. Also, there is no evidence that the wombats are going to escape if their burrows are bulldozed. These animals are more likely to die. Those burrows are their homes, and they are their homes, in most cases, forever. Their innate response when they are in danger is to go to their burrow. That's where they seek protection, but now that has become a death trap. Bulldozing burrows has been known to occur at times when the juveniles are still totally dependent on the burrow for their survival. After approximately six months, young wombats are no longer carried by their mother and are most likely to stay in their burrow for another two to three months—again, putting them in such a vulnerable situation because of the way they are being killed, legally. I'm saying that again, because this clearly needs to be thoroughly investigated and, I would argue, stopped.
The dependency on the burrow is what has enabled the wombat to survive—it is estimated by experts in this area—for 55 million to 65 million years. That's how long they've been on this continent. The burrows have become part of their adaptation to the dry and changing environment of Australia. Now that is being destroyed at a rapid rate. There is an urgent need for more research into this animal, the southern hairy-nosed wombat. It is a unique wombat. It is a species that is only found in this country.
Extinction is entirely avoidable. Professor Lesley Hughes from the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University, when commenting on the whole extinction crisis that is occurring in this country, said: 'I think the whole system is completely broken.' I endorse those comments. I did want to inform the Senate tonight of how serious this extinction crisis is. That wombats, which are so closely identified with Australia, could be suffering and that there is the possibility of their extinction is surely something we should deal with and at least get more research going into this species.
Senate adjourned at 21 : 02
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.]
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and Corporations Act 2001—Treasury Laws Amendment (Professional Standards Schemes) Regulations 2018 [F2018L00096].
Civil Aviation Act 1988—Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—2018 Bright Open Australian Nationals and Paragliding World Cup Instrument 2018—CASA EX14/18 [F2018L00095].
Commissioner of Taxation—Public Rulings—Class Rulings CR 2018/8 and CR 2018/9.
Water Act 2007—Water Amendment (Interactions with Australian Capital Territory Water Resource Plans) Regulations 2018 [F2018L00097].
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk pursuant to order:
Departmental and agency grants—Additional estimates 2017-18—Letters of advice pursuant to the order of the Senate of 24 June 2008—
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio (Resources and Northern Australia).
Estimates hearings—Unanswered questions on notice—Budget estimates 2017-18 (Supplementary)—Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 25 June 2014—
Australian Trade and Investment Commission.
Finance portfolio.
Health portfolio.
Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio.
Tourism Australia.
Tabling
The following documents were tabled pursuant to standing order 61(1)(b):
Response to Senate resolution
1. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—Resolution agreed to on 29 November 2017—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Western Australian Minister for Regional Development (Ms MacTiernan), dated 2 February 2018.