The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order. They are listed on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:31): I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 1.
BILLS
Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
The CHAIR (09:31): The committee is considering the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:32): Madam Chair, an amendment has been moved, has it not?
The CHAIR: We did put and pass some amendments. Opposition amendment (1) was passed just before 7.20 yesterday evening. It's up to you; I'm in your hands.
Senator LEYONHJELM: I'm happy to move mine. It's just that, on the running order, the Greens amendments are first.
The CHAIR: That's fine, Senator Leyonhjelm. You've got the call.
Senator LEYONHJELM: by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8368 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 23), after the definition of on-demand program service, insert:
outdoor public place means an outdoor place to which the public, or a section of the public, ordinarily has access, whether or not by payment or by invitation (including, for example, the open air areas of an outdoor concert or sportsground).
(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 8 (after line 23), after subsection 9B(6), insert:
(7) For the purposes of this section, an intimate image does not include a drawing, painting or sketch (whether still or moving).
(8) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), an intimate image does not include images of a person in an outdoor public place.
2
My amendments exclude drawings, paintings and sketches from the definition of 'image'. I note that, on page 23, the explanatory memorandum says that the definition of an image includes a drawing. My amendment seeks to exclude these drawings, paintings and sketches so that a $100,000 fine couldn't be slapped on someone for merely posting a drawing, painting or sketch of someone. If I posted a picture or, indeed, a drawing of President Donald Trump urinating in Central Park, I shouldn't face a $100,000 fine.
My amendments also exclude certain images taken in outdoor public places from the definition of 'intimate image'. As a result, a $100,000 fine couldn't be slapped on someone for merely posting a picture of someone doing a typically private act in an outdoor public place. For example, if I posted a photo of President Donald Trump urinating in Central Park where no rude bits are showing, I shouldn't face a $100,000 fine.
There is a further result of my amendment regarding outdoor public places. The bill allows a $100,000 fine to be slapped on someone for posting a picture of someone without religious or cultural attire when that person consistently wears religious attire in public. This is reasonable if the picture was taken when the person was on private property or in a public toilet, but it's not reasonable if the picture was taken of the person in an outdoor public place. My amendment would ensure a $100,000 fine couldn't be slapped on someone for posting a picture of a person out of their usual religious or cultural attire if the person was in an outdoor public place at the time.
For example, a picture of Cardinal George Pell without his collar would, potentially, come under this bill. A picture of a nun who wasn't wearing her habit in public would, potentially, offend against this bill. A woman who normally wears a burqa but wasn't wearing a burqa in public and had her picture taken would, potentially, offend against this bill, unless my amendment succeeds.
I acknowledge that the bill already attempts to limit the capacity to impose fines by saying they only apply in circumstances in which an ordinary reasonable person could reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, but this is vague. My additional limitation regarding outdoor public places would add some much-needed clarity. I commend my amendments to the Senate.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:36): Senator Leyonhjelm has asked me to look closely at his amendments, which I have done. I can seek to provide some context to this particular part of the legislation. Let me start with the exclusion of a drawing, painting or sketch from a definition of an 'intimate image' that Senator Leyonhjelm is seeking.
Under the bill, an intimate image can be a still visual image, such as a photograph, or moving visual images, such as video recordings. Images could be photographs, modified photographs, animations, drawings or other depictions of the person, such as what is known as morph porn, and fake pornographic videos also known as deep fakes. There are exemptions in the bill whereby, if an ordinary reasonable person considered the posting or the sharing of the image acceptable in certain circumstances, it would not be captured by the prohibition. Obviously, we have in mind there things such as satirical drawings or parodies.
Moving to Senator Leyonhjelm seeking to exclude 'outdoor public place' in the definition of an intimate image, the definition of 'intimate image' includes depiction of a private activity where material will be an intimate image of a person if it depicts or appears to depict the person in a state of undress, using the toilet, showering, having a bath, engaged in a sexual act of a kind not ordinarily done in public or engaged in other like activity in circumstances in which an ordinary reasonable person would reasonably be expected to be afforded privacy. It wouldn't include a situation where a person is in their swimmers at the beach or showering at the beach.
The government remains of the view that the current definition does afford protection in circumstances where they would expect privacy. I certainly appreciate the sentiment and the motivation of Senator Leyonhjelm and, as he requested, we did look closely at his amendments, but the government aren't, at this point, minded to support those amendments. Obviously, legislation of this sort is always kept under review in the light of practical experience and its real-world operation. The Senate has already determined that there will be a statutory review in three years time, but, in the outworking of legislation, if there appear to be issues before that time, that is naturally something that I'm sure all colleagues would want to examine.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:39): I want to indicate that Labor will not be supporting the amendment. It doesn't deliver the necessary change required to deliver the real outcomes that we have sought in our legislative recommendations for change in the course of this inquiry. It doesn't deter or practically respond to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:40): Minister, in the example you gave, that it wouldn't cover somebody in their swimmers at the beach, if a woman's normal cultural attire was a burkini and, on one particular day, that person was wearing some other kind of swimwear, would this legislation apply to that situation?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:40): Sorry, I missed the last part of Senator Leyonhjelm's contribution there.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:40): I will include all three examples rather than rise three times. If a woman's normal beach attire—you referred to swimmers—was a burkini, and that woman on one particular occasion was not wearing a burkini at the beach but some other form of swimwear, would that image, if posted, offend against this legislation? Would a picture of Cardinal George Pell not wearing his collar, his normal religious attire, offend against this legislation? Would a nun who was not wearing her habit but who normally wore her habit was photographed in a public place, would that offend against this legislation?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:41): Thank you, Senator Leyonhjelm. In response to each of those three examples, the answer would be no. But I do just add the caveat that context is important in these matters and it would depend whether there was some other offensive depiction which might trigger this legislation. But, just in the pared-back examples you have given, the answer would be no in each case.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (09:42): We do not support these amendments. I would like to remind Senator Leyonhjelm that just because a woman steps into a public space doesn't mean she no longer has a right to privacy and protection. I would think that this is a rather easily understandable point to make and it surprises me that it is lost on the senator in this case. Individuals must have, and can reasonably expect, privacy in various situations where they are in outdoor spaces. An obvious example of a phenomenon that is increasing and quite troubling in this area is upskirting and down-blousing. The highly offensive insinuation, I would argue, behind this amendment, as I have said, is that just because a woman, or any other person, steps out in public, they have given their consent for inappropriate and humiliating images to be taken and shared. Quite frankly, that is a disgusting insinuation to make. We proudly do not support these amendments, and I cannot for the life of me begin to think why such things would be put forward in this place.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:44): I rise in defence of Senator Leyonhjelm. I do not take it that Senator Leyonhjelm's proposed amendments are based on the sorts of inferences that Senator Steele-John has made, that Senator Leyonhjelm is in any way a supporter of or wants to see legislative exemptions for the inappropriate depiction of women.
While the government isn't minded to support Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments, for the reasons I have outlined, I do not question for one second Senator Leyonhjelm's motivation. Senator Leyonhjelm's seeking to examine legislation, to test it and to ensure that, as well as protections, there aren't liberties that are needlessly infringed. I do feel compelled to reject the insinuations that Senator Steele-John makes in terms of the motivation of Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments. As I said, while we're not minded to support Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments; nevertheless, we do fully appreciate the spirit in which he has moved them.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (09:45): I'd like to ask the minister a question: if a person who normally wears a burqa enters a courtroom and is required by the judge to remove her burqa and who is then photographed, and that photograph is then shown, where does that stand?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:46): My view would be that a courtroom is not a private place and that individuals should comply with what they are directed to do within a courtroom. I'm sure that that context would be taken into account. Also, courts themselves will have certain rules in relation to what can be photographed and what can be recorded, for that matter, within their confines.
The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) and (2), moved by Senator Leyonhjelm, on sheet 8368 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [09:51]
(The Chair—Senator Lines.)
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:55): I move Liberal Democrats amendment (3) on sheet 8368:
(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 10 (lines 1 to 13), omit section 9E, substitute:
9E Consent
For the purposes of the application of this Act to an intimate image, consent means consent that is:
(a) express; and
(b) voluntary; and
(c) informed;
but does not include:
(d) consent given by a person who is in a mental or physical condition (whether temporary or permanent) that
(i) makes the person incapable of giving consent; or
This amendment prevents a $100,000 fine from being slapped on a person for posting an image of a child if the child consents to the posting of the image. I point out that a child is anyone under the age of 18. Currently the bill states that a child cannot give consent to the posting of their image, so even if a 17-year-old urged their friend or partner, who may also be 17, to post the image, that friend or partner could face a $100,000 fine under the bill as it stands.
If the image depicts a child in a sexual pose or sexual act, or with someone in a sexual pose or act, or if the image depicts a child's sexual organs, anal region or a female child's breasts then the image is child pornography. Regardless of the claims a person who posts such an image makes about consent, posting such an image is a criminal offence punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, a fine of more than $100,000 or both. The only purpose of ruling out consent by a child in this bill is to impose fines upon a person for posting an image of a consenting child that isn't pornographic. It could be a picture of a child picking their nose or eating their earwax, which seems to be a qualification for becoming a leader of the Labor Party.
I urge senators not to let legitimate concerns about child pornography colour their views about a bill that is not about child pornography. A 17-year-old can consent to the posting of an image of them picking their nose, and the person who does the posting shouldn't face a $100,000 fine for doing so. I commend my amendment to the chamber.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:57): I indicate that the government won't be supporting this amendment. Under the bill, consent to share an intimate image cannot be given by a child, who is a person under the age of 18, as Senator Leyonhjelm points out. This is because, to the extent that the definition of intimate image overlaps with the definition of child sexual exploitation material in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, a lower age of consent for the distribution of intimate images would create an inappropriate inconsistency between the criminal and civil frameworks. The effect of this item is that a person under the age of 18 cannot provide consent to the sharing by another person of an intimate image of themselves, as distribution of this image would effectively constitute distribution of exploitative material. I should also point out that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner will, under this legislation, adopt a graduated approach to enforcing prohibitions: firstly, seeking the non-formal resolution of a complaint; then issuing formal written warnings, infringement notices and so on; and ultimately through to civil penalties, if those are warranted.
Senator LEYONHJELM ( New South Wales ) ( 09:58 ): If I understand this correctly, you're arguing that because of an inappropriate inconsistency if two friends, both of whom are 17, came to an agreement that they would have a nose-picking contest and would take and post pictures of each other picking their noses, and continued to do so repeatedly, notwithstanding warnings from the eSafety Commissioner, potentially they would be each exposed to $100,000 fines. You're saying that because of inappropriate inconsistency with laws relating to child pornography, you can't do anything to mitigate that rather absurd situation?
Senator FIFIELD ( Victoria — Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate ) ( 09:59 ): In the first instance, someone would need to lodge a complaint. It would also have to be something that an ordinary, reasonable person would consider inappropriate. As with all these things, it's to do with context, but I wouldn't imagine that the particular case or example that Senator Leyonhjelm has cited would result in the consequences that he's flagged.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (10:00): If normal, reasonable people like you and me, Minister, were eSafety commissioners, perhaps you could imagine that it wouldn't descend to the point where somebody would receive a $100,000 fine. My point is this: what is to stop that from occurring if the eSafety Commissioner were not as normal and reasonable as you and I?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:01): Ultimately, the civil penalties would be determined by courts not by the eSafety Commissioner.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:01): We do not support this amendment; although we have some concerns related to the unintended consequences of teenagers engaging in consensual image-sharing activities. Our approach to this issue has been to ensure that under-18s cannot be exposed to harsh civil penalties. We believe that it is of the utmost importance to ensure that children have adequate protection from predators who might seek to exploit their images online.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:02): I would indicate that this legislation is about sharing images with a third party. That is the focus of the legislation.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:02): If you have two underage 17-year-olds of whom photos have been taken, the images have been put out there and neither person is complaining about them, but the parents are complaining about those images, what's the ruling?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:02): Parents can make complaints in relation to their children.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:03): I just want to clarify this; I was preoccupied and am not sure whether I heard your answer correctly. Who will be responsible, subject to a complaint, for the penalty that's imposed in this respect? Senator Leyonhjelm's concern was that a child, a 17-year-old, could be fined $100,000. I'm sympathetic to the point that we accept that children are allowed to make decisions to get into sexual relationships with their peers from the age of 16. Yet we're saying that they're not able to consent to having an intimate image—which conjures up all sorts of suggestions; however, it's not child pornography, as we've described—publicly displayed. Further, I question the circumstances such as the Bill Henson pictures, which caused such a controversy so many years ago—I note the Prime Minister has some—which depicted children in an artistic setting, apparently, without the benefit of clothes. Are they deemed to be intimate pictures, and would someone like Mr Henson be subject to these sorts of penalties?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:04): In relation to the question of who would enforce or determine civil penalties, the Federal Court would do so. In relation to the sharing of images, again, I point out that what we're talking about here is the sharing of images with third parties.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:05): Minister, I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstood my question. Sharing images with third parties—we're not talking about child pornography; we're talking about intimate images, which conjures up scenarios where people anticipate it's pornography, but I think Senator Leyonhjelm's made the point it's not. So where does it leave the circumstance where you have someone like Mr Henson, who is a photographer who takes photos of prepubescent children in a state of undress? Those children are not eligible or able to give consent to having those photos taken, yet what happens if someone shares those images or puts them on public display? Where is this line drawn? I come back to the other point: how is it that children—and this is once again an emotive term, but it's a legal term—minors, are able to have sexual relationships with their peers at the age of 16, and we say they're mature enough, and we're realistic enough to make that assessment, yet they're not able to consent to having their images displayed in a manner of their choosing, in the scenarios which Senator Leyonhjelm has put forward?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:06): It will be the ordinary reasonable person test that would be applied by the Federal Court.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:06): Minister, do you propose to respond to any of the specific questions as to whether the artistic claims of someone like Mr Henson would fall foul of this law?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:07): I hesitate to put myself in the place of the court and speak to particular works by particular artists, but my understanding is that there is an exemption for artistic works. But, obviously, those artistic works need to be in accord with other legislation.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:07): I just raise the question again: so it's okay for an 'artist'—and, for the benefit of Hansard, I put that in quotation marks—to take naked pictures of prepubescent children, but it's not okay for a 17-year-old to say, 'I'm happy for you to publish an image of me that's not a sexual image' to one of their peers? I just find this unusual, and I think that Senator Leyonhjelm makes a valid point—that we attribute any number of things to young adults, albeit, they are minors. We allow them to choose to smoke cigarettes if that's what they do, by legally allowing them to buy them; we allow them to engage in sexual relations; we have people who are advocating that they be allowed to vote; and yet we're not enabling them to consent to having their image shared in the manner in which they choose to do it. I just find that's not consistent with the approach of this legislation.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:09): I'll just cite part of the bill before us, which states:
(g) an ordinary reasonable person would consider the post acceptable, having regard to the following matters:
(i) the nature and content of the intimate image;
(ii) the circumstances in which the intimate image was posted;
(iii) the age, intellectual capacity, vulnerability or other relevant circumstances of the depicted person;
(iv) the degree to which the posting of the intimate image affects the privacy of the depicted person;
(v) the relationship between the end‑user and the depicted person;
All these things would need to be taken into account. I can't really give what would in effect be a ruling, which would be the place of the Federal Court if a matter was brought forward, when it would have regard to the particular matters which I've just cited.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (10:10): Minister, help me here. Where is the reference in the bill to art or artistic matters?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:10): I was using shorthand, I guess, in that those five provisions that I mentioned have in mind things such as artistic works.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:10): I indicate that Labor will not be supporting the amendment. We concur with the minister's comments about the oversight of the court with regard to the matters discussed.
Question negatived.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (10:11): I move Liberal Democrats amendment (4) on sheet 8368:
(4) Schedule 1, item 26, page 16 (line 17), omit paragraph 44B(1)(d).
As currently drafted, the bill allows someone who posts an image to be hit with a $100,000 fine if they are ordinarily resident in Australia or if the person depicted is ordinarily resident in Australia. This means an Australian could be hit with a fine when no image of an Australian is depicted, so no Australian is harmed. That is wrong. It is the role of our government to protect Australians from harm, not to make Australians conform with a model of behaviour that is harmless to any other Australians. Posting a picture of President Donald Trump going to the toilet in Trump Tower might be in poor taste, but it should not be against Australian law. The government serves the people, not the other way around. The government is not our mother and it is not our nanny.
My amendment would limit the bill so that someone who posts an image could be hit with a $100,000 fine only if the person depicted is ordinarily resident in Australia. I commend my amendment to the chamber.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:12): Senator Leyonhjelm is correct. Under the bill, if there is an Australian link, such as the perpetrator or the victim being ordinarily resident in Australia, the commissioner will be able to exercise his or her powers, including issuing removal notices to sites hosted in overseas jurisdictions. The proposed amendment would mean that the prohibition would only apply if the person depicted in the image is ordinarily resident in Australia, to my understanding. The effect of the amendment would prevent the commissioner exercising his or her powers if the victim wasn't ordinarily resident in Australia. The government won't be supporting the amendment.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:13): The Greens do not support this amendment, as it seeks to prohibit the posting of an intimate image or threatening to post one only if the victim is an Australian resident and to remove the requirement for the perpetrator to be an Australian resident. There are obviously practical limits to the reach of the eSafety Commissioner, and it cannot be within their remit to police the entire internet, across all continents. But such a blunt instrument is unwise in this space.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:14): Labor will not be supporting this amendment.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:14): I would like to clarify the point that Senator Leyonhjelm raised. You are saying that if they are a non-Australian and a photo was taken of them which they are not happy with, they can make a complaint with regard to that photo being taken. Therefore, if it goes through the legal system, would they pay for the court case or would it be the Australian taxpayer?
On the other hand, if they are a foreigner who's taken the photo of an Australian resident and they are charged and fined over it, how are we going to recover that money from them and who pays that cost?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:15): To clarify, the perpetrator or the victim has to be Australian. In terms of who would pay for the enforcement activity, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has a budget, and within that budget they would, firstly, seek a non-formal resolution of the complaint—if necessary, formal written warnings and infringement notices. Beyond that, matters would go to the Federal Court, who obviously have a budget for their particular activities. In short, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is provisioned with resources to support the activities outlined in the legislation.
Question negatived.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (10:16): by leave—I move Liberal Democratic Party amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 8368:
(5) Schedule 1, item 26, page 16 (lines 23 to 26), omit the note.
(6) Schedule 1, item 26, page 16 (after line 26), after subsection 44B(2), insert:
(2A) Despite section 96 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, in proceedings for a civil penalty order against a person for a contravention of subsection (1), the person does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2) of this section.
Despite the bill's title, the bill doesn't ban the non-consensual sharing of intimate images; instead, the bill bans the sharing of intimate images and then provides an exception for instances where the depicted person consents. This drafting approach matters because it puts the onus on the person facing the $100,000 fine to prove that the depicted person consented to the image being posted. It would be difficult for either side of a dispute about a posted image to prove consent or the absence of consent. In some cases, there'll be evidence confirming conversations about plans to post the image but in many cases there will be no such evidence.
I refer to my example of the nose-picking contest—if somebody disagrees or disputes that they posted consent. That highlights the difficulties. The difficulties don't justify reversing the well-founded convention that the party seeking to impose a penalty must prove behaviour in the circumstances that would justify such a penalty. My amendment would simply undo the reversal of the onus of proof. I'm hoping the Senate could be clear eyed on this matter, particularly given that revenge porn involves allegations about female perpetrators as well as male perpetrators. I commend the amendments.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:18): Under the bill, consent to share an image must be express, voluntary and informed. The evidential burden of proof that consent was given—Senator Leyonhjelm was correct—lies with the person who shared the image in any civil penalty proceedings. Again, I emphasise that this doesn't relate to the sharing of images between two people; this relates to the sharing of those with a third party. Given the serious impact that this conduct of sharing beyond the individuals involved has on the victim, the government is of the view that it's appropriate that the alleged perpetrator prove consent to share an image.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:19): The proposed amendments go towards addressing the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. However, we do not believe that the civil penalty is akin to the criminal offence, as suggested by the committee. The penalty provisions are expressly classified as civil penalties. As such, there is no consequence in the form of criminal record. The high penalty reflects the serious nature of sharing an intimate image without consent and the harm and distress that that can then cause. Key concerns that we have expressed in the past related to the burden of proof on the complainant under the use of a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. We do not support placing undue pressure on victims in these cases. The reversal of the burden of proof in this instance allows the commissioner to investigate and determine matters based on evidence that is in the mind of the person around the nature of consent, whether it is expressly given or expressly not given or absent entirely. As such, we do not support these amendments.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:21): I indicate that Labor will not be supporting these amendments either.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Gallacher ): The question is that amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 8368 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [10:26]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Gallacher)
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:29): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8366 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 20), omit "a person", substitute "an adult".
(2) Schedule 1, item 26, page 15 (line 19), omit "A person", substitute "An adult".
(3) Schedule 1, item 26, page 16 (line 17), after "person", insert "is an adult and".
(4) Schedule 1, item 26, page 21 (line 2), omit "A person", substitute "An adult".
(5) Schedule 1, item 26, page 21 (line 3), omit "the person", substitute "the adult".
(6) Schedule 1, item 26, page 21 (line 28), omit "A person", substitute "An adult".
As I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate, we have serious concerns around the, hopefully, unintended implications of this legislation for the people under the age of 18 who will potentially face steep civil penalties under this regime. The government have indicated that the application of these penalties to people under the age of 18 is not their intention; however, to ensure that this unintended consequence does not arise, we seek to have this limitation enshrined in the legislation.
I would like to remind the chamber that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child's general comment No. 10 states:
Children differ from adults in their physical and psychological development, and their emotional and educational needs. Such differences constitute the basis for the lesser culpability of children in conflict with the law. These and other differences are the reasons for a separate juvenile justice system and require a different treatment for children. The protection of the best interests of the child means, for instance, that the traditional objectives of criminal justice, such as repression/retribution, must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives in dealing with child offenders. This can be done in concert with attention to effective public safety.
The Law Council of Australia also notes:
Financial penalties will rarely be appropriate for children and young people. The Law Council suggests that the civil penalties regime could include not only infringement notices, formal warnings and take down notices, but also diversionary/rehabilitation processes, such as the possibility of a conference, attendance at counselling and participating in courses relating to cyber bullying and sexting.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:32): Thank you, Senator Steele-John. The government won't be supporting the amendments moved by the Australian Greens. The penalties apply to all persons to ensure that there is a strong deterrent to engaging in the sharing of intimate images without consent.
In practice, as Senator Steele-John alluded to, the eSafety Commissioner will take a very cautious approach in relation to any complaint made against a perpetrator under 18 years of age. The eSafety Commissioner will firstly look to engage with the perpetrator in an informal manner and change behaviour. This informal approach has been successful under the existing cyberbullying regime. The commissioner does have the discretion to use other light-touch remedies, including issuing a formal warning notice. It is expected only light-touch remedies would be required in matters involving a perpetrator under 18 years of age. Strong remedies, including civil penalties, would only be used in exceptional cases, such as for a repeat offender where other remedies have been ineffective.
A contravention of the prohibition in the bill and/or a failure to comply with a removal notice triggers a civil penalty order provision contained in the Regulatory Powers Act. If the eSafety Commissioner does decide to apply for a civil penalty order, the court has the discretion as to whether it orders the person to pay the penalty. When determining the appropriate penalty amount, the court must take into account matters including the nature and extent of the contravention; the nature and extent of any loss or damage suffered because of the contravention; the circumstances in which the contravention took place; and whether the person has previously been found by a court to have engaged in any similar activity. So I think there are important things to bear in mind in terms of the operation of this legislation.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:34): I'd like to ask the minister whether he is aware that there is a very, very substantive amount of research in the area of child justice that directly contravenes the idea of the application of criminal or civil penalties to people under the age of 18, due to the physiological reality that the development of a child is not at the same stage as the development of an adult and so it is most appropriate to apply diversionary, rehabilitative and educational approaches in those cases. It is my view that it was never the intention of the government to have this criminal regime apply to children, because I cannot in good conscience imagine that the minister, who is a man of great capacity, could possibly believe that it would in any circumstance be productive or just to apply a penalty of up to $107,000 to a child. So I would ask the minister again: is he comfortable with the possibility created by this legislation of applying such a penalty to children in the face of overwhelming evidence given in many forums, including by commissioners of this government, that such approaches are simply not effective, nor just, in relation to children?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:36): I should point out that this is not a criminal regime for underage individuals that is being proposed here. This is a civil penalties regime that has application to the whole community. As I indicated before, the intention is that this is something that would be used in the case of repeat offenders, where other remedies have been ineffective. Senator Steele-John is quite right to point out there is a range of alternative remedies and it's appropriate that they are pursued. But, where you have repeat offenders, it is appropriate that we have a civil penalties regime in place. Just because a person is under the age of 18 does not mean that they are necessarily without the capacity to determine right from wrong. We are very much of the view that this is appropriate.
If I do follow the logic of what Senator Steele-John has said, however, I would assume, although I suspect it's not the case, that Senator Steele-John will not be supporting the criminal provisions put forward by NXT, because, to my understanding, they would apply to people below the age of 18. The government is not putting in place, through this legislation, a criminal regime to apply to people below the age of 18. I'm not suggesting that, where there are criminal provisions, they shouldn't apply to people below the age of 18, but I'm just seeking to follow the thread through with Senator Steele-John as to what the implications of his position in relation to the civil penalties regime might be for his stance in relation to criminal penalties amendments that might be moved later.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:38): As the minister has rightly noted, it would be only in extreme cases that we would reach the stage of intervention in relation to children. Would the minister not agree that there are almost, imaginably, no cases in which a person below the age of 18 would be able to feasibly meet a civil penalty of $107,000? In fact, the burden of meeting this penalty would fall upon the child's family or extended family. In that case, wouldn't it simply be better to follow the advice of the Australian Law Council, guided by the views of the United Nations and embodied within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and put in place a comprehensive, diversionary, educated, evidence based approach to dealing with this very serious issue in relation to children?
I would also remind the minister at this point in time that these questions with regard to the action of civil penalty regimes on children and their possible impacts are something we could have explored had the government agreed to my suggestion to allow the Senate to perform its role as a house of review and refer this bill to committee. These are serious issues which relate to the community as a whole, with a massive impact on children, both as victims and as perpetrators. This is a complex legislative area and, while I appreciate that the minister is providing us with the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation in this period, it would have been so much easier to answer these questions and produce a piece of legislation as robust, comprehensive and durable as that which is deserved by the victims of this most heinous crime.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:41): I should point out that the civil penalties are only up to $105,000. As I've indicated before, if there were to be a civil penalty sought by the eSafety Commissioner through the Federal Court then it would be in circumstances where other remedies have been ineffective—where there'd been a repeat offender—and the courts, in determining the appropriate penalty amount, again, have to take into account the nature and extent of the contravention, the nature and extent of any loss or damage suffered, the circumstances of the contravention, and whether the person has previously been found by a court to have engaged in similar conduct. The courts can also determine not to apply a civil penalty. But, again, I emphasise that the eSafety Commissioner would firstly seek a non-formal resolution of the complaint, followed if necessary by a formal written warning, followed if necessary by an infringement notice. They have the option of enforceable undertakings, injunctions and, ultimately, civil penalties. So there are really six layers of the graduated approach that could be taken in these circumstances.
In terms of consultation, there was extensive public consultation last year. Senator Steele-John is right that this legislation hasn't been referred to a committee of the Senate for inquiry. That is something that sometimes happens, but often it doesn't happen. In this case I surmise that a majority of colleagues were not in favour of a Senate inquiry, given the extensive public consultation that had occurred and the extensive examination that colleagues have already given this legislation.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:43): One Nation will not be supporting the Greens amendment to this bill. After listening to the senator's comments with regard to this, I note the Greens speak of people being underage, under adult age, and being children in their development and the way they think and decipher everything. I find this very hypocritical of the Greens, after seeing their policies. They wish to reduce the voting age to 16. The Constitution says that if you want to be a member of parliament you have to be on the roll, and being on the roll you are then entitled to stand for election as a member of parliament. So in one case the Greens say, 'They're underage; they don't have the development or the skills and they should be treated as children,' but on the other hand, in their policies, they're quite happy for someone who is 16 years old to be voting and to have their say. One Nation will not be supporting the Greens in this amendment.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:44): Labor will not be supporting this amendment. We acknowledge that the amendment is designed to restrict the application of civil penalties to adults. But we note that the bill is under scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we also note its report of 6 February this year. The entry for this bill in that report requests the advice of the minister as to whether the severity of the civil penalties that may be imposed on individuals is such that the penalties may be criminal in nature for the purpose of international human rights law. It also seeks advice from the minister as to the nature of penalties: if the penalties are considered criminal for the purposes of international human rights law; whether they're compatible with criminal process rights, including specific guarantees of the right to a fair trial; and the determination of a criminal charge, such as the presumption of innocence. It also refers to the right not to incriminate one's self, the right not to be tried and punished twice for an offence and a guarantee against retrospective criminal laws and whether any limitations on these rights imposed by the measures are permissible and whether the measures could be amended to accord with criminal process rights.
Labor notes that the committee has requested further information from the minister in relation to the penalties under this bill and notes this as further support for a criminal regime for image-based abuse, given the criminal process rights that are afforded to criminal penalties. That aside, Labor notes that the scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights did not identify any concerns in relation to Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Labor appreciates and understands the value in having a strong legal framework in place to strengthen the eSafety Commissioner's ability to resolve matters informally and formally. We support the introduction of a graduated suite of redress mechanisms, to which the minister has added some flesh in his comments this morning. These responses include issuing removal of infringement notices, seeking a civil penalty order from a relevant court, enforceable undertakings or seeking an injunction for contraventions of the civil penalty provisions.
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 images, and, thus, a removal notice or other enforcement action may not be required in every case.
We also understand that the bill affords a number of checks and balances on the impact of the regime on children. Notably, these include affording the eSafety Commissioner discretion around whether an image meets the threshold of being an intimate image and around what responses to use in the event that there is a contravention, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case. These include factors such as the age of the child and the type of image, for example. Only in the most serious of cases, such as repeat offenders, multiple victims or noncompliance by bodies corporate, could the commissioner seek a civil penalty order in the Federal Circuit Court or the Federal Court, where the perpetrators might be fined up to 500 penalty units, which equates up to $105,000 for an individual and up to five times that amount, $525,000, for bodies corporate.
The need to obtain civil penalty orders in a court of law acts as a check on the potential imposition of civil penalties on child offenders. Labor understands that the application of a financial penalty on a minor would be a response of last resort for the repeat offender who has not responded to other redress mechanisms.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:49): First of all, I'd like to respond to the ridiculous suggestion made by Senator Hanson of a similarity between my position on this issue and the Greens' general position in relation to the lowering of the voting age, of which I am a proud and long-term supporter. I would say to you very directly, Senator Hanson, through the chair, that having a say in your own future is not the same as being placed in a situation where you may have your future destroyed. There is such a blindingly clear difference between these two issues that I am, quite frankly, stunned by your inability to see the difference.
I now turn to the question of these amendments and the heart of the issue that they go to. I want to put this very clearly for everybody in this chamber: as currently written, the civil penalties regime outlined within this legislation, which could potentially place somebody at the risk of a fine of up to $107,000, is currently applicable to any person over the age of 10. I do not believe, absent of the political context, that any person present in this chamber would believe that a 10-year-old should come within the same galactic distance of a civil penalty of any shape or form. Any expert, or any person in this place who had taken the time to consult an expert or given the opportunity for this legislation to be consulted on and considered by experts—as is the job of this chamber—would have found a resounding suggestion that the clarification within these amendments be enshrined in the law. There can be no benefit to applying a civil penalty to a 10-year-old, regardless of the situation. I ask the minister once again: is he comfortable with the idea of implementing a civil penalty regime that would apply to 10-year-old Australians?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:51): I'm very comfortable with a graduated regime that has six elements to it, and I am comfortable with having the determination in relation to civil penalties in the hands of the Federal Court, taking into account the four matters which I've previously listed that the Federal Court would be required to take into account.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:52): Just for clarification: you could end up in a situation with this bill, through the suggested legislative framework, where somebody under the age of 18—again, as young as 10—through a violation of the non-compliance aspect of this legislation, for many and varied reasons, is before the Federal Court. Somebody as young as 10! Do you truly believe that it would not be better for that person in that situation to be diverted, as the Law Council of Australia has suggested? I can tell you now that, had either side of this chamber decided to refer this bill to a committee, the Law Council of Australia would have given the feedback that there are not appropriate diversionary pathways within this legislation. Does the minister sit here seriously suggesting that a 10-year-old child would be better off, under any circumstance, interacting with the Federal Court system?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:54): I draw Senator Steele-John's attention to the fact that the eSafety Commissioner would firstly seek non-formal resolution of a complaint, that they have the option of formal written warnings, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions, and that civil penalties are the last resort. It is a graduated regime. There's no suggestion that civil penalties are a first resort. As I said before, I have confidence in the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Federal Court.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:55): Is it the understanding of the minister that, within this legislative framework, the eSafety Commissioner is able to delegate the discretion to make such recommendations to any person or relevant person within ACMA?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:55): There is a delegation power that the eSafety Commissioner has to task her staff with an infringement notice.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:56): I draw the minister's attention to subsection 46A(2), which would allow the eSafety Commissioner to delegate authority to issue infringement notices to any member of the staff of ACMA, which can be any APS employee. This was an issue raised within the small time of scrutiny that was given by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It was noted as one of their concerns. This allows the delegation of administrative powers to a relatively large class of persons with little or no specificity to their qualifications or attributes. The committee also noted that the explanatory memorandum provides no explanation for the broad delegation of power to issue infringements. Can the minister please justify, in relation to this amendment, the reality that this broad delegation of power gives to any employee of ACMA the ability to issue an infringement notice to a child as young as 10.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:57): Under the bill the eSafety Commissioner is able to issue an infringement notice and can delegate this power by authorising staff at the Australian Communications and Media Authority in writing to undertake this duty. I think it's important for colleagues to understand that the staff of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner are technically employed by ACMA, so the intention isn't that the entirety of ACMA would have that capacity. This arrangement would permit the commissioner to authorise appropriate staff to be infringement officers. In practice, it's expected that the commissioner would only delegate this power to senior staff with appropriate attributes, qualifications, qualities and relevant experience.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:58): If that is the aspiration in practice, why has this not been clearly articulated within the legislation?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:58): I have just articulated what the intention is and the way that this will operate in practice.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:58): I again draw the minister's attention. What he has just outlined is the fact that the power to issue these infringement notices can be delegated to those with absolutely no qualifications in the space. You've just expressed that, in practice, you believe it would be best if the commissioner were to delegate those notices and the issues of those notices to those with the appropriate qualifications and that those be senior officers. Again I ask the minister: if that's your aspiration for how this process would work, why not clearly state that within the legislation?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:59): The delegation is for the eSafety Commissioner to give. There is no automatic right to anyone in ACMA to have the capacity to issue such infringement notices. That capacity rests with the eSafety Commissioner, who can delegate to officers that she deems to be appropriate.
The reason ACMA is specified is because the staff of the eSafety Commissioner are employed by ACMA. So she has the authority to delegate and will do so to appropriate individuals.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): The question is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8366 moved by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
The committee divided. [11:04]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Bernardi)
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:07): I move the Nick Xenophon Team amendment on sheet 8371:
(1) Page 27 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2—Amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995
Criminal Code Act 1995
1 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code
Insert:
intimate image has the meaning given by section 9B of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015, but does not include an intimate image under subsection 9B(4).
2 After Subdivision D of Division 474 of the Criminal Code
Insert:
Subdivision DA—Offences relating to use of carriage service for transmitting, etc. intimate images
474.24D Concurrent operation intended
(1) This Subdivision is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), this Subdivision is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of a law of a State or Territory that makes:
(a) an act or omission that is an offence against a provision of this Subdivision; or
(b) a similar act or omission;
an offence against the law of the State or Territory.
(3) Subsection (2) applies even if the law of the State or Territory does any one or more of the following:
(a) provides for a penalty for the offence that differs from the penalty provided for in this Subdivision;
(b) provides for a fault element in relation to the offence that differs from the fault elements applicable to the offence under this Subdivision;
(c) provides for a defence in relation to the offence that differs from the defences applicable to the offence under this Subdivision.
474.24E Using a carriage service for transmitting, etc. intimate images
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person transmits, makes available, publishes, distributes, advertises or promotes material; and
(b) the material is an intimate image; and
(c) the person engages in the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) without the consent of a subject of the material; and
(d) the person knows of, or is reckless as to, the subject's lack of consent; and
(e) the person engages in the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) using a carriage service.
Penalty:
(a) in the case of an aggravated offence (see section 474.24H)—imprisonment for 5 years;
(b) in any other case—imprisonment for 3 years.
Transmission etc. to subject of material
(2) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), the prosecution must prove that the conduct mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) did not consist solely of a transmission, making available, publication, distribution, advertisement or promotion of an intimate image to a subject in the intimate image.
Consent
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1) (c):
(a) a subject in an intimate image consents to the conduct mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) if the subject gives either:
(i) a general consent covering conduct of the kind engaged in by the first person;
Or
(ii) consent to the particular instance of conduct engaged in by the first person; and
(b) the consent may be given expressly or by necessary implication.
Use of carriage service
(4) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1) (e).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.
Defences
(5) As well as the general defences provided for in Part 2.3, defences are provided for under section 474.24J in relation to this section.
Definitions
(6) In this section:
consent means free and voluntary agreement.
474.24F Using a carriage service—making a threat about intimate images
(1) A person (the first person) commits an offence if:
(a) the first person makes a threat to another person (the second person) to transmit, make available, publish, distribute, advertise or promote an intimate image of which the second person or a third person is a subject; and
(b) the first person intends the second person to fear that the threat will be carried out; and
(c) either or both of the following apply:
(i) the first person makes the threat using a carriage service;
(ii) the threat is to transmit, make available, publish, distribute, advertise or promote the intimate image using a carriage service.
Penalty:
(a) in the case of an aggravated offence (see section 474.2411)—imprisonment for 5 years;
(b) in any other case—imprisonment for 3 years.
Actual fear not necessary
(2) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the person receiving the threat actually feared that the threat would be carried out.
Intimate image need not exist
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is irrelevant whether the intimate image actually exists.
Use of carriage service
(4) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.
Definitions
(5) In this section:
fear includes apprehension.
474.24G Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining an intimate image for use through a carriage service
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person:
(i) has possession or control of material; or
(ii) produces, supplies or obtains material; and
(b) the material is an intimate image; and
(c) the person has that possession or control, or engages in that production, supply or obtaining, with the intention that the material be used:
(i) by that person; or
(ii) by another person;
in committing an offence against section 474.24E (using a carriage service for transmitting, etc. intimate images) or 474.24F (using a carriage service—making a threat about intimate images); and
(d) the person has that possession or control, or engages in that production, supply or obtaining:
(i) for a commercial purpose; or
(ii) for the purpose of obtaining (whether directly or indirectly) a benefit.
Penalty:
(a) in the case of an aggravated offence (see section 474.24H)—imprisonment for 10 years;
(b) in any other case—imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if committing the offence against section 474.24E or 474.24F is impossible.
(3) It is not an offence to attempt to commit an offence against subsection (1).
474.24H Aggravated offences
(1 ) For the purposes of this Subdivision, an offence committed by a person (the offender) where the intimate image is of a person who is, or the offender believes to be, under 16 years of age is an aggravated offence.
(2) If the prosecution intends to prove an aggravated offence, the charge must allege the relevant aggravated offence.
(3) If, on a trial for an aggravated offence, the trier of fact is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the aggravated offence, but is otherwise satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the corresponding (non-aggravated) offence against section 474.24E, 474.24F or 474.24G, it may find the defendant not guilty of the aggravated offence, but guilty of the relevant corresponding offence.
(4) Subsection (3) only applies if the defendant has been afforded procedural fairness in relation to the finding of guilt for the corresponding (non-aggravated) offence against section 474.24E, 474.24F or 474.24G.
474.24J Defences in respect of intimate images
Public benefit
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence against section 474.24E (using a carriage service for transmitting, etc. intimate images) or 474.24G (possessing etc. an intimate image for use through a carriage service) because of engaging in particular conduct if the conduct:
(a) is of public benefit; and
(b) does not extend beyond what is of public benefit.
In determining whether the person is, under this subsection, not criminally responsible for the offence, the question whether the conduct is of public benefit is a question of fact and the person's motives in engaging in the conduct are irrelevant.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection, see subsection 13.3(3).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct is of public benefit if, and only if, the conduct is necessary for or of assistance in:
(a) enforcing a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(b) monitoring compliance with, or investigating a contravention of, a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the administration of justice; or
(d) conducting scientific, medical or educational research that has been approved by the Minister in writing for the purposes of this section.
Media activities
(3) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence against section 474.24E (using a carriage service for transmitting, etc. intimate images) or 474.24G (possessing etc. an intimate image for use through a carriage service) because of engaging in particular conduct if:
(a) the person engaged in the conduct for the purposes of collecting, preparing for the dissemination of, or disseminating:
(i) material having the character of news, current affairs, information or a documentary; or
(ii) material consisting of commentary or opinion on, or analysis of, news, current affairs, information or a documentary; and
(b) the person did not intend the conduct to cause harm to a subject of the material; and
(c) the person reasonably believed the conduct to be in the public interest.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection, see
subsection 13.3(3).
Duties of law enforcement officer, or intelligence or security officer
(4) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence against section 474.24E (using a carriage service for transmitting, etc. intimate images) or 474.24G (possessing etc. an intimate image for use through a carriage service) if:
(a) the person is, at the time of the offence, a law enforcement officer, or an intelligence or security officer, acting in the course of his or her duties; and
(b) the conduct of the person is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of performing that duty.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection, see
subsection 133(3).
Prohibited content and content filtering technology
(5) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence against section 474.24E (using a carriage service for transmitting, etc. intimate images) or 474.24G (possessing etc. an intimate image for use through a carriage service) if the person engages in the conduct in good faith for the sole purpose of:
(a) assisting the Children's e-Safety Commissioner to detect:
(i) prohibited content (within the meaning of Schedule 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992); or
(ii) potential prohibited content (within the meaning of that Schedule); in the performance of the Commissioner's functions under Schedule 5 or Schedule 7 to that Act; or
(b) manufacturing or developing, or updating, content filtering technology (including software) in accordance with:
(i) a recognised alternative access-prevention arrangement (within the meaning of clause 40 of Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992); or
(ii) a designated alternative access-prevention arrangement (within the meaning of clause 60 of that Schedule).
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection, see
subsection 13.3(3).
474.24K Consent to commencement of proceedings where defendant under 18
(1) Proceedings for an offence against this Subdivision must not be commenced without the consent of the Attorney-General if the defendant was under 18 at the time he or she allegedly engaged in the conduct constituting the offence.
(2) However, a person may be arrested for, charged with, or remanded in custody or on bail in connection with, such an offence before the necessary consent has been given.
3 Subsections 475.1A(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code
After "D,", insert "DA,".
4 Paragraphs 475.1B(1)(a) and (2)(a) of the Criminal Code
After "D,", insert "DA,".
This amendment introduces three new offences into the Commonwealth Criminal Code with respect to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images—namely, knowingly or recklessly producing intimate images 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. These offences make it clear that it is the victim's consent that has paramount consideration and not whether the alleged perpetrator intended to cause harm. These take into consideration the final recommendations of the Senate inquiry into the phenomenon known as revenge porn.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:08): I'll just speak briefly to the amendment moved by Senator Griff and outline why the government won't be supporting it. Firstly, the amendment moved is a departure from the bill's intent, which is to introduce a civil penalties regime as opposed to amending the Criminal Code. Existing criminal laws—Commonwealth criminal laws, I should point out—do comprehensively criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. It is an offence to use the internet, social media or a mobile phone to menace, harass or cause offence. There have been a number of successful prosecutions for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images under this offence. There are also extensive child abuse material offences which apply to the sharing of intimate images of children.
Broadly framed provisions of general application are generally preferred for Commonwealth offences. Broad provisions can be used to prosecute a range of criminal behaviours and avoid issues such as technical distinctions, loopholes and difficulties with prosecution that are associated with having similar provisions of slightly different operation against Commonwealth law.
The focus of this bill is the creation of a civil penalty process to provide victims with an alternative avenue for redress without requiring victims to go through the criminal justice system, if that is what they choose. Extensive public consultation during the development of the civil penalty regime confirmed that assistance taking down images is a key priority for victims. I should also point out that, to ensure a nationally consistent criminal framework to protect victims, the Australian government led the development of a national statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The principles are working to ensure a consistent approach by states and territories to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. They also ensure a consistent response and outcome for victims and perpetrators, no matter where they are located.
I want to highlight that, in not supporting Senator Griff's amendments, the government is in no way indicating a lack of support for, and/or a lack of importance of, having criminal provisions. As I say, we do have some existing criminal provisions at Commonwealth level, and at state and territory level there are also criminal provisions, and there are efforts underway to harmonise those. In this area, there is no single response that can satisfy the need. There needs to be a wide-ranging approach with a number of elements. Criminal provisions are important. Seeking to educate people is important. Non-formal resolution is important. What we're seeking to do through this legislation is to provide an avenue for resolution and an avenue for redress through a graduated civil penalties regime that is not currently in place. I just thought that context might be helpful for colleagues.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:12): I just want to put on the record, as we're about to approach a vote on the amendment that's put forward here by NXT, the context in which this is happening. Labor support this bill, but we have consistently said that it doesn't go far enough to address the seriousness of image based abuse.
The context is that, in October 2015, Labor introduced a private member's bill that would make the non-consensual sharing of 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 clarification of 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 actually went to the last federal election, in the year 2016, promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise what we're talking about here today—to criminalise what was then called 'revenge porn' but within this legislation is called 'non-consensual sharing of images'. We promised to do that within the first 100 days of being elected because we sensed the urgency of this matter, and we sensed that the urgency that exists about action on this matter to criminalise this sort of conduct is shared by the Australian people.
In October 2016, Labor reintroduced its private members bill into 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. It's all well and good for the minister to say that criminal priorities are important, but this is the action, or lack of action, that we've seen.
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 image-based abuse, but that motion was defeated. It's clear, in our view, that what is proposed in this bill by the government doesn't go far enough. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images is exploitative, is humiliating and is a very damaging form of abuse, and it needs to be treated as such.
Labor is pleased that the Xenophon party has joined Labor in calling for the criminalisation of image-based abuse. Labor has been the proponent of this and has approached it in a very measured way based on our extensive work behind our own private member's bill, which the government refused to bring on. This was a 2016 election policy, and Labor will take it to the next election, if we don't see action from this government. The Xenophon party has adopted Labor's position. Indeed, they have adopted the very words of Labor's private member's bill as their own. Labor's clear and longstanding position has been that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images should be made a criminal offence. We thank the Xenophon team for moving these amendments.
Labor will not oppose what is essentially its own private member's bill that was prosecuted for several years but rejected by the government. While Labor supports the introduction of a civil penalties regime as a step in the right direction, the government's bill doesn't go far enough. Labor supports the introduction of a civil penalties regime. However, we do not oppose this amendment given it's, effectively, our own bill. Labor didn't move the amendment itself, because we didn't want to risk the government packing up its bags and packing up its bat and ball and going home, if this amendment gets up in the Senate. It's important to note that the government has indicated that, potentially, it'll pull the civil penalties bill from the program, if this amendment is carried. That's of great concern. We urge the government to give the four-out-of-five Australians who want criminalisation what they want by letting this bill continue its progress through the parliament, whether or not this amendment succeeds in the Senate.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): Thank you, Senator O'Neill. Senator Steele-John.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:17): I'm happy for the minister to reply, and then I'll jump in.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:17): I'll put on the record again—lest anyone who tunes into the debate or is subsequently reading the Hansard is under the impression that there are currently no Commonwealth criminal provisions in this area. Under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 it is an offence to use a carriage service in a menacing, harassing or offensive way. That is section 474 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is three years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $37,800. Since 2004 there have been 927 charges proven against 458 defendants under this offence, including a number of cases in relation to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
As I mentioned before, in May 2017 the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council, which is the ministerial council for the Attorneys-General, published National statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Alignment on key principles is an important initiative, as most offences are likely to be prosecuted at that state level. Can I indicate, in terms of individual jurisdictions, that most states already have criminal laws, and those that do not are considering it or progressing it. I'm advised that New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia have criminal laws for specific non-consensual sharing of intimate images, that the Northern Territory has introduced a bill with specific laws, and that Queensland and Tasmania intend to introduce specific laws. That is the current status in the Commonwealth, and in state and territory jurisdictions.
As I mentioned earlier, what we're proposing here in this legislation is a civil penalties regime to complement the existing and emerging criminal provisions at Commonwealth, state and territory levels. For those reasons, and because of the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council process, we're not intending to support the amendment moved by Senator Griff. If the amendment moved by Senator Griff is successful in the Senate, it may well be the case, after the transmission of this bill to the House, that it comes back to the Senate again in an amended form from the other place. If that were to occur, I would hope that colleagues at that point would not allow the disagreement over the Stirling Griff amendment to delay the passage of the civil penalties regime into law.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:21): Here we are. After what seems like many eternities of considering different aspects of this legislation, we come now to the critical question of whether the government can rise above its own all-too-often inclination towards petulance and actually pass through this place a piece of legislation that would give criminal recourse to the more than five million Australians who live within the Northern Territory and within the state of Queensland and who currently have no criminal recourse in this matter. There may well be a bill before the NT, but we have the opportunity to do something now.
I'm happy to hear the minister allude to the government's intention to pass this bill, amended by NXT, to the other place and that he has expressed the hope that when it returns a disagreement over this issue does not sink the legislation. I say to him that that is a ball firmly within his court. Amended, as suggested by NXT, this legislation addresses the very profound nature in which the different criminal and civil penalty regimes of the states differ. That is critical in addressing this problem. I don't know whether the minister has had the opportunity to review the information given to a current Senate inquiry into the issue of cyberbullying, of which this is an oft talked about aspect, but it was very clear to all of those who participated that variations in state legislation pose significant challenges to victims when seeking recourse in this way.
Indeed, last year my predecessor, Scott Ludlam, expressed his disappointment and frustration that the legislation before the Senate at that time with regard to the sharing of intimate images had been pushed off in the criminal space for the states to handle in a piecemeal manner. I skip ahead eight months now, and states and territories have acted. But, again, I draw your attention to the reality that there are five million Australians currently without criminal recourse. The Australian Greens believe that the civil penalty regime proposed in this legislation complements existing criminal regimes related to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images; however, there is undeniable and inescapable merit in extending criminal redress processes to those Australians currently without it.
There is a need, when considering these issues of such a serious and complex nature, which impact upon the lives of so many Australians in ways which are unimaginable to some members of this chamber yet are a part of the lived experience for others, that we attempt even momentarily to rise above the inclination towards political opportunism and towards discourses which place political gain above the interest of vulnerable community members who are experiencing abuse. In our roles as representatives in this place we have heard on many occasions from victims of these horrific crimes. We have also heard from these individuals that there is a culture in this nation which does not lend itself to the taking of these issues seriously; in fact somebody remarked to me last week that, in relation to the issue of cyberbullying—particularly as it pertains to predatory trolling and the rather violently inclined abuse of our female journalists who work in this place every day—our cultural attitude, our implementation of law and the understanding which our community, law enforcement and employers have is akin to where the conversation with regard to domestic violence was 30 years ago.
Fellow citizens, predominantly women—in many cases people with a disability, members of the LGBTI community, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders—suffer daily under the threat that images of themselves in the most private of situations will be shared with a community of billions, due to motivations of hatred and discrimination. A cultural change is needed in this nation. We must now turn towards treating these crimes with the seriousness they deserve. This parliament, by passing this legislation as amended, has the opportunity now to send a very clear message. I urge the government to join us in sending that message and, should the bill return amended from the other place, to support it once again. I urge the minister to utilise his charisma and influence within his party room—not inconsiderable, I'm sure—to convince his colleagues of the need to pass this legislation.
This is an issue of pre-eminent national importance. This is not something which should have been brought on with haste. This is not something which should have been brought on in a political context happening elsewhere. This is not something which should have been dealt with in the fifth year of this government or any government. It should have been something that was dealt with thoroughly, calmly and fastidiously in the first moments of a government's life. But, here we are; this is what we have been given. This is the opportunity before us to make change and to send a message. We support these amendments and I would urge you, as a colleague and as a man who I believe is in possession of profound intellect, to support these amendments as well. I commend them to the House.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:30): Having heard the minister's responses, it really concerns me that he is continuing to assert that the criminal regime around the country is adequate to deal with this issue. I'm very mindful of the recent social media campaigns, the #MeToo campaign, which put in a public place the level of embedded abuse that is part of the cultural practices of our time. I think it goes to some of the points that Senator Steele-John has just made. The reality is that here today in this chamber, with no further delay, with no more weasel words, the government could take a position to criminalise the sharing of intimate images against someone's will. That's it. It's not like it's a big risk for the government to do this. Four out of five Australians are saying, 'Good on you, you should do it.' We know that Australians want this. We all should know, if we're paying attention to the cultural practices of our time, that a criminal regime is what is called for and what is needed. But still we have these weasel words, still we have this delay, still we have this very passive description of the current structures being adequate. In our view they certainly are not. I have a couple of questions for the minister directly. To what extent, Minister, do you believe a civil penalty scheme will assist the eSafety Commissioner in prosecuting rogue operators, including overseas operators?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:32): Thanks, Senator O'Neill. When it comes to overseas operators or hosts, I guess, of offending material, the eSafety Commissioner works through a number of global law enforcement networks and also social media networks to endeavour to have offending material taken down. As with all online matters, we always have the challenge that the Australian jurisdiction does not extend beyond the borders of Australia, but this will be further strength to the arm of the eSafety Commissioner.
Just to respond to some of Senator O'Neill's earlier points, the impression that has been left by some of the contributions around the chamber is that there has not yet been the criminalisation of the sharing of intimate images. There already has been the criminalisation of that. Under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, as I have referred to before, it is an offence to use a carriage service in a 'menacing, harassing or offensive' way. Also, I have referred to some of the existing state laws that have criminalised this conduct and some of the laws that are in prospect. So, we do have criminal offences.
What we currently don't have is a civil penalties regime. Delay to the passage of this legislation will be delaying something that does not currently exist, and that is a civil penalties regime. A civil penalties regime will benefit victims practically immediately.
Now, it's entirely legitimate for there to be ongoing discussion and debate about criminal provisions at both the Commonwealth and the state levels, and I'm sure that will continue, but that particular debate is not a reason to tie up this civil penalties regime. I would encourage colleagues to support the passage of legislation which is intended to set up a civil penalties regime and not to have it tied to other debates.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:35): Minister, with respect, this doesn't have to be an either-or proposition. This amendment gives you the opportunity to do and-and. We've constantly said this, and this chamber has expressed support for the civil penalty regime, but there's an opportunity here for you to do what needs to be done to give people actual choice to prosecute, to go through a criminal scheme to access justice.
Yesterday I made some points about the reality that we have limited choice that's available to victims of the sharing of images to which they haven't given consent. We acknowledge that not everybody will want to pursue the criminal proceedings and some of them would actually prefer to work with the eSafety Commissioner, and a civil regime is okay in that context, but, at the moment, the choice for people to actually prosecute through criminal courts is simply not available to so many Australians. There needs to be a deterrent. Everybody understands this. At least four out of five Australians are saying there needs to be a deterrent. This is sufficiently unpleasant behaviour—this is sufficiently criminal behaviour—that it warrants the Criminal Code, not just a civil regime. That's the view of Australia right at this point of time. I think, Minister, you are completely out of touch with it when you say we have to choose between one or the other.
With regard to your response to my question regarding overseas jurisdictions, we have had, through the eSafety Commissioner's engagement with major social media players, a very good relationship develop, and we have seen improvements in the speed with which images have been removed, because there's reputational damage to those large entities. But, for those overseas rogue players whose business is in fact providing a platform for the sharing of images to which people have not consented, there needs to be some deterrent here at home to stop people from doing that. Criminalising it will provide that deterrent, Minister.
Could you respond to those points and also help me understand: does the minister acknowledge that a criminal regime would provide the eSafety Commissioner with greater clout and capacity to prosecute rogue operators and potentially give the eSafety Commissioner greater success when it comes to enforcement?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:38): Can I say again: there are existing criminal provisions. If a question is posed to someone, 'Do you think there should be criminal provisions?' they will say yes. And there are criminal provisions. If a question is put to someone with the implication that there aren't currently criminal provisions, then I understand that people would say, 'Yes, there should be.' And there are criminal provisions at the Commonwealth level. There are criminal provisions in most jurisdictions, and those that don't have them are looking to put them in specifically in relation to this matter.
I'm not suggesting, and never have suggested, that this is a case of either-or, of either civil penalties or criminal provisions. I've said that civil provisions complement criminal provisions. We do have criminal provisions at the moment. What we don't have at the moment is a civil penalties regime, and that's what this legislation seeks to put in place.
Senator O'Neill asked, in terms of a criminal regime or further amendments to the criminal regime, if that would be of assistance to the eSafety Commissioner. The answer to that is that, at present, the criminal regime is one that would be pursued by the Australian Federal Police. That could well be the case with further amendments. That is the law enforcement body for criminal provisions at the Commonwealth level.
In terms of enforcing legislation in overseas jurisdictions, while the eSafety office does have a great deal of success in working cooperatively with sites and services hosted overseas to have material removed, as Senator O'Neill has mentioned, it is extremely difficult to compel sites hosted overseas to remove material, because Australian law covers Australia. We don't have an extraterritorial capacity in relation to these matters, and that's where cooperation with partner organisations overseas is extremely important.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:41): I'm sure the minister is aware of submissions made to the inquiry into this matter by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The concerns that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions expressed were that there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with revenge porn. The submission stated those exact words:
There are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with 'revenge porn' conduct.
Is the minister aware of those concerns from the DPP?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:42): I'm aware that there is a range of submissions on this subject area. I have never said that the Criminal Code at Commonwealth and state levels is set in stone and should never be altered or examined. My point is that what is before us is legislation to establish a civil penalties regime, that we should have this legislation passed in its current form and that there are other processes and opportunities to examine the criminal law. At the moment, the prime vehicle for that is the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:43): I read that as the minister being aware of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions pointing out to the government that there are limitations that need a response but refusing to take that on board. Is the minister aware of the comments arising from the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children, which 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.
They expressly used the words 'criminal nature'. Does the minister reject or accept the submission seeking to reduce violence against women and their children?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:43): The civil penalties regime that we're seeking to legislate here is a very strong response and very strong contribution to addressing these issues. As I say, there are existing criminal provisions at the Commonwealth and state levels. As I said before, I have never suggested that they are set in stone or that it's not appropriate to examine those. That is something that is happening through the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council and the national statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:44): Minister, referring to your comments on international cooperation and enforcement against rogue operators, the INHOPE website states:
INHOPE focuses on responding to criminally illegal content and activity.
Would the minister rather the resources of the AFP be used to prosecute this material than the eSafety Commissioner via the INHOPE network?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:45): In this area, it's a shared endeavour between organisations, statutory offices like the eSafety Commissioner, the Australian Federal Police and counterparts overseas.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:45): In light of your comments about it being a shared endeavour, I can't understand why this piece of legislation can't undertake a cooperative approach to criminal and civil law at this point in time. The minister has acknowledged that the AFP has a role to play—and there's an integration of services to address these issues. Is the minister aware that, at a Senate hearing, the AFP said 'uniformity in legislation across Australia would be most helpful for police in order to be able to investigate and charge perpetrators'?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:46): That doesn't surprise me, because the objective of the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council national statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is aligned on key principles and offences through those jurisdictions.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:46): I have a question for the minister. I would imagine he would be aware of an institution within this parliament known as the Parliamentary Library. Would I be correct?
Senator Fifield: I take that as a rhetorical question.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: If you'd like to, take it on notice! Would you also be aware the Parliamentary Library produces digests for legislation, and that they have in fact produced a digest for this piece of legislation?
Senator Fifield: I take that as a rhetorical question.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I will take that to be the case. Are you aware of the state of Queensland?
The CHAIR: Senator Steele-John, I will make—
Senator STEELE-JOHN: This is going somewhere, Chair.
The CHAIR: Senator Steele-John, don't interrupt me, please. It is the minister's prerogative to answer or not answer questions. I'm just making you aware of that.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I presume he would be aware of the state of Queensland and of the digests. So I can't quite understand—and maybe the minister can elaborate for the chamber—why he continues to assert that there are criminal penalties which protect Australians when 4.6 million Australians are currently without criminal recourse due to the fact that the state of Queensland—which is a state of Australia, as noted in the digest—is without a criminal regime. I would like to ask the minister, given his understanding of the underlying issues, why he does not believe that we should take this opportunity to extend a criminal source of redress to the people of Queensland.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:48): I've already indicated that Queensland and Tasmania intend to introduce specific laws and that, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, it's an offence to use a carriage service in a menacing, harassing or offensive way. The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act applies to all of Australia, including Queensland and Tasmania. The Queensland state Labor government stated on 25 November 2017 that, if re-elected—and they have been—it would criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Premier Palaszczuk said at the time:
… the laws will apply to people who send or threaten to send explicit material without consent.
That is the intent of the Labor government of Queensland, which I have already referred to. Again, the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act applies to the whole nation.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8371, moved by Senator Griff, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [11:54]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Third Reading
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:57): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:58): I rise to speak in support of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The bill strengthens APRA's management powers in both preventing and responding to a financial crisis. It will provide APRA with clear powers to ensure that regulated entities are better prepared for a financial stress event. It will also strengthen APRA's powers relevant to the resolution of a regulated entity in distress. APRA's existing crisis resolution powers enable it to take control of a failing bank or insurer when needed. However, often banks or insurers are part of a complex financial group with many different contractual arrangements. The bill will enable APRA to also take control of group entities so that it also has the powers to resolve a distressed regulated entity or group quickly and effectively.
It's been just over 10 years since the onset of the global financial crisis. Indeed, it was around this time 10 years ago, in 2008, that the UK government nationalised Northern Rock bank. It was in March 2008 that the world's fifth-largest bank, Bear Stearns, collapsed and was taken over by JP Morgan. By June 2008, the Labor government had announced the introduction of the Financial Claims Scheme and the bank guarantee to provide certainty and protection to Australian banking customers. Only a few months later, in September 2008, the US government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. They were extraordinary times.
Labor announced the guarantee scheme for large deposits and wholesale funding in October 2008 to support confidence and to assist banks, building societies and credit unions. This followed developments in international wholesale funding markets that were restricting the ability of financial institutions to access funding, with potentially serious implications for liquidity and lending activity. A few days later, Labor's first stimulus response was announced: the Economic Security Strategy, worth $10.4 billion. The second response was released in February 2009, with a further $42 billion: the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Labor's stimulus was substantial and well-designed to support the economy and to support employment. It averted recession and it saved more than 200,000 jobs that otherwise would have been lost.
The results of Australia's economic management during that time speak for themselves. Between 2007 and 2012, Australia's increase in GDP per capita, in US dollar terms, exceeded that of any other G20 nation by more than 80 per cent. Between December 2007 and around March 2013, employment rose by 8.8 per cent despite the global financial crisis. This contrasted with significantly weaker employment outcomes in other advanced economies, including net job losses in the United States, Japan, France and Italy. Thanks to the response of the Labor government, Australia was one of only two advanced economies to actually avoid recession. The capital and skill destruction avoided in Australia was key to ensuring high levels of growth in the years following the crisis. Post-crisis employment participation in Australia exceeded levels seen in most advanced economies, including Britain and the US. As the member for Rankin noted in the other place, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, arguably one of the three or four most respected and well-regarded economists on the planet, looked at Labor's response to the global financial crisis and said it was the best in the world. He said that Labor's policies were probably the best designed stimulus package of any of the advanced industrial countries in size, design, timing and how it was spent. The member for Lilley and former Treasurer was also awarded and lauded around the world for his role during the financial crisis.
Australia's institutional frameworks put in place prior to the crisis also served us well and contributed to our relatively strong economic performance during this difficult time. These frameworks included a sound prudential regulatory regime overseen by APRA. In government, Labor recognised the need to continuously engage with financial regulators, particularly APRA, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, to identify ways to strengthen further the regulatory framework that protects depositors, policyholders and other consumers of financial services. We knew that, in order to keep our financial sector strong and resilient in the face of any further external shocks, it was necessary to maintain constant vigilance.
It was Labor that kicked off some of the work that has led to the bill that we have before us today. This included the 2011 consultation paper on the Financial Claims Scheme and the 2012 consultation paper, Strengthening APRA's crisis management powers, which canvassed a large number of proposals which sought to address gaps in the framework, such as powers to address a distressed foreign bank in Australia, the ability to require restructuring of a regulated entity to facilitate resolution, and deficiencies in powers to resolve group distress. Later, in 2014, the Murray financial system inquiry recommended that the government complete the process for strengthening APRA's crisis management powers.
The experience of other countries during the GFC demonstrated that, when complex financial groups enter distress, failure to resolve these entities in an orderly fashion can lead to severe adverse economic consequences. The disorderly failure of a significant financial institution in Australia could have a severe impact on the financial system and the community more broadly. This bill aims to ensure APRA has the effective powers necessary to resolve a failing entity expeditiously in such a way as to protect the interests of depositors and policyholders and to maintain financial system stability.
In conclusion, Labor support this bill. We support Australian regulators having the appropriate powers they need to minimise the probability of a financial crisis, and, in the event that a financial institution does become distressed, we see that APRA needs to have the powers necessary to facilitate the orderly resolution of the institution. It's critical that our institutions are able to protect the interests of Australian depositors, policyholders and superannuation beneficiaries, and to protect the stability of the financial system as a whole.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:05): I rise today to speak on behalf of the Greens in relation to the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The purpose of this bill is to amend a number of statutes and so provide the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, with an enhanced suite of crisis resolution powers. Those powers will apply to prudentially regulated authorised deposit-taking institutions, otherwise known as ADIs; general insurers; life insurance companies; and group entities.
This piece of legislation before us has been to the Economics Legislation Committee. I'm a part of that committee along with Senator Ketter in here today, and we have been through a process now of dealing with a number of concerns in relation to this legislation today. I want to outline those concerns here today because I think they are reasonable. I also believe, and shall state on record now, that the committee has answered those concerns as directly as possible. It's very important that, when we are dealing with matters of financial regulation or matters relating directly to the financial system that is so important for our economy, we here in parliament keep a very close eye on proceedings. The committee has gone to great lengths to address concerns that have been raised by a number of stakeholders. Those queries and concerns in the submissions have been answered on the website of the economics committee.
There were also additional criticisms of the committee and concerns from the committee other members and me that we didn't have a public hearing in relation to this piece of legislation. May I say here today that that's not an indication that the committee didn't take this seriously. We most certainly did. I will go through some of those queries, questions and concerns in a minute. They are reasonable, and we should be as transparent as possible, but there's nothing that a public hearing on this matter would have delivered that the combined regulators and Treasury weren't able to answer in significant detail. I stress again that we went to great lengths to make sure that these issues were addressed. If there are still concerns relating to this legislation then those concerns can be raised directly with the head of APRA, the head of ASIC and, of course, Treasury in just a few weeks time at Senate estimates. So I will say that, if there are still concerns out there, these are issues where senators can do their jobs. They can ask direct questions to Treasury officials who put this legislation together and to the minister who is responsible for this. But I and the Greens are comfortable that those issues have been addressed. That information is in the public realm. We have been transparent. We have worked hard to address those issues, and I think overall this legislation should be supported.
There are a couple of things I wanted to talk about. I won't necessarily go into the detail or the structure of the bill. There are nearly seven schedules there that need to be amended. But I will say that the purpose of this policy is to follow on from the final report of the 2014 financial system inquiry, which made a number of recommendations to improve the resilience of Australia's financial system and enhance the ability of regulators to deal with a financial crisis. This essentially is following on from that recommendation. Why are we doing this? Not just Australia but the entire global economy has been through a very significant financial crisis in the last decade. In fact, I would argue it was the most significant financial crisis that we have seen and, I hope, are ever likely to see. This was financial contagion. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, Senator O'Neill, Australia reacted to that because we had strong institutions and because we had a government and a parliament that were willing to act and take good advice. We can sit here and debate until the cows come home how much money was spent on things like fiscal stimuli, but, at the end of the day, we took action. Not doing so could have led to even worse consequences. Why? Because financial systems are held together by one thing.
We talk about currencies, we talk about money, but actually the currency in a financial system isn't money itself; it's trust. When trust breaks down, the whole system breaks down. We get risk, we get instability, we get mass panic and hysteria, and we get financial contagion. It's that simple. I recommend anybody who wants to have a really good basic understanding of this to look at Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, an absolutely brilliant series pitched in a very interesting way about how the financial system was set up and how it still works today. But, without trust, there is no financial system and everything falls apart. And by everything, I mean everything. You see the worst excesses when people panic because they can't access their money, when businesses shut down, when people are rioting on the streets: we get all sorts of problems.
Raising issues around financial regulation and how we regulate in times of crisis is a really important thing to do. Some of those people who have come to see us senators and the committee have said: 'Look, we have concerns about this. We have concerns around transparency. We're giving APRA new powers, which is essentially what this bill does. We have concerns about whether the regulators are going to act in the interests of depositors, savers who've got their money in banks.' These are important points, but I do feel like they've been thoroughly dealt with.
So what were some of the key concerns and criticisms that were raised with the committee about this legislation? The first one—which has been addressed by Treasury and which is on the website of the economics committee—really related to the protection of depositors. Suggestions in submissions that deposits were not protected under the Banking Act 1959, that this bill provides APRA with bailing powers and that these powers are to be extended to deposits are incorrect. They're absolutely valid concerns to raise, no doubt about it, but the best evidence we've had before us is that those concerns are not justified. Depositors are protected by the government's Financial Claims Scheme, the FCS, which guarantees deposits up to a cap of $250,000 per person per authorised deposit-taking institution.
Now why was this guarantee put in place? Let's just go back really quickly. This guarantee was put in place to help stability in the financial system, to help prevent that contagion and that disaster that I've just referred to. This was designed to try to bring back some trust in the system and assure people that their deposits were safe with the government guarantee. In other words: it was a key measure to head off panic. I've been arguing in this place that we need to recoup the guarantees given to banks in the form of a bank levy, and I'm very pleased that in this parliament the government has done that. So in a way the government has given the banks a leg-up by providing a depositor guarantee and I think the banks have profited from that. I would like to see some of that go back to the taxpayer, but the purpose of that guarantee in the first place was to protect depositors and keep trust in the system, and I think that worked.
Of course that guarantee was also for wholesale and institutional deposits. Although that has now been changed, the deposit guarantee is still in place. And I will refer to the Reserve Bank's comments on the committee's website in relation to the submissions, and the concerns. They don't see any benefit at all in not guaranteeing deposits for the stability of the system—quite the opposite. The reason it's actually in place is to give people that sense of trust in the system.
There are a wide range of deposits that are covered under the FCS, including term deposits, savings accounts, call accounts, pension accounts, trustee accounts and retirement savings accounts. And while this legislation before us today does include reforms to ensure that capital instruments of authorised ADIs and insurers can be written down or converted in accordance with their contractual terms, it does not include the statutory power, APRA, being able to write down or convert the interests of other creditors in resolution, including depositors of a failing ADI—a so-called bailing power.
I would hope that we have learnt from history and won't let our ADIs fail. It didn't happen in the GFC. Australia had an enviable global track record in the actions we took during the GFC. We have seen failures of ADIs. I remember the Pyramid collapse, for example, in Victoria. I've seen them happen. Of course, I worked on Wall Street. I was teaching finance to first-year students when the GFC happened. So this is a very real thing to me. Although there was a lot of evidence that the risks in that system were leading to it, it's amazing that so many of us didn't detect what was going on till it was too late.
While I'm giving plugs for things that are worth watching, I still think—for anyone who hasn't seen it—The Big Shortis a funny movie but a very, very important movie. It's a good way to educate people on the risks in this system and make it approachable. It's a fascinating and chilling account of how the masses, including decision-makers and politicians, can get it wrong. And that's why, when we get people coming to the committee, and we get thousands of emails—like I've received and, no doubt, Senator Ketter has received—I do take seriously the concerns of people that we got it wrong in the past in a really big way and it can happen again. But I'm convinced that it didn't happen in this country because we do have good regulators and we had a government and a parliament that was on top of the system.
The other thing that's worth pointing out is that depositors will not be subject to the provisions in the bill that deal with the conversion of capital write-off of capital instruments. In fact, the existing law, as further strengthened by this bill, provides a high level of other protections for the interests of depositors in a crisis; in particular, APRA's statutory objectives include protecting the interests of depositors and promoting financial system stability in Australia. Both Treasury and APRA have provided feedback and consider, in the case of a failure of an ADI—and once again I hope that will never happen—that the objectives of protecting depositors and promoting financial system stability would be very closely aligned. The Reserve Bank said exactly the same thing. This is further reflected by the depositor preference provisions in the Banking Act, which give depositors priority over most other creditors in the winding up of an ADI, to the extent that depositors have not already been paid out under the FCS, which I just mentioned.
Finally, I note that the bill includes an amendment that, for the avoidance of doubt, explicitly adds the words 'to protect the interests of depositors of any ADI'—authorised deposit-taking institution—into the definition of prudential matters on which APRA makes prudential standards under the Banking Act. I think that issue has been well dealt with and we will continue to do our job to make sure this legislation is implemented. We will continue to ask questions of the regulators in relation to this issue.
The next issue was the implementation of the Glass-Steagall legislation in Australia. While I think that would be an interesting debate, and if someone wants to put up a private member's bill or the government wants to bring it on, we can have the debate about a structural separation in our economy. That's been previously implemented in the US. I understand why people may think that the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act was a contributor to the GFC, but I do think that in Australia most of our big retail banks—and they are some of the biggest and most profitable banks in the world—are not as active in the investment banking market, as, for example, our foreign banks, like the ones I used to work for—Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch. I think there is already a type of structural separation. By all accounts, let's have the debate. It would be a very interesting one if someone were to introduce such a bill into parliament.
There are concerns with the secrecy provisions in the bill. If you don't trust the banking sector, if you don't trust the financial system in this country, I, once again, understand where that comes from. That's why the Greens have pushed so hard for a royal commission into the financial services industry. We've now got that. Justice Hayne made it clear the other day that he wants to work hard in his very short time frame to try to bring some trust back into the system and look at how things can be improved, as well as, hopefully, some restitution for those who have been victims of financial misconduct. So I understand where the lack of trust comes from and, therefore, I think people tend to lump trust in the financial system together with trust around the regulators. The regulators are part of the banking system. Interestingly enough, we did hear some very strong criticism from whistleblowers about how close our regulators were to the banking sector back in 2013-14, and that's something we watch very closely. But my experience of working with the regulators, as a senator, is that they do a good job. They are not perfect. They make mistakes. There have been some cultural issues there. They have been underfunded. We've done a lot to try to improve that situation. But, while we're always watching it, my personal experience is that I do trust the regulators—people like APRA, the Reserve Bank and ASIC—to do their job to the best of their ability with the resources that they have. We still have significant oversight here in parliament on just about all matters relating to their work, and that won't change.
The issue around secrecy provisions in the bill is that the proposed legislation allows APRA to determine that the giving of a direction by it should be confidential in certain circumstances where APRA considers that such a determination is necessary to protect depositors or policyholders or to promote financial system stability in Australia. There were suggestions in the submissions that these provisions will allow APRA to subordinate the interests of depositors in favour of financial system stability in a crisis. I don't believe that is a correct reading of the legislation. The confidentiality provisions in the proposed legislation relate only to APRA's ability to determine that an APRA direction should be confidential. This would not detract from APRA's wider statutory objectives to protect depositors under the Banking Act. If they did do something like taking money away from depositors—the savings of ordinary Australians—as I mentioned earlier, it would be counterproductive to financial stability. It would have quite the opposite effect, and I don't believe any of us are that stupid.
Consumer protection for investment in hybrids is the last thing I'd like to deal with here, because I think this is an issue. I have raised it directly with Greg Medcraft, the previous head of ASIC, in a number of estimates, and I know that Mr Medcraft has also raised concerns—not necessarily around the regulation of hybrids, because ASIC have put in place a number of procedures to try to better manage the risk of hybrid securities. For those people who don't know what hybrid securities are, they're essentially a mixture of different basic debt and equity instruments. They are extremely complex. Even my mates who've done CFAs still find them complex. I still find them complex. So I imagine retail investors who may not necessarily have financial backgrounds or be interested in this kind of thing, if they're sold these kinds of instruments and they're getting a 400-basis-point premium over current interest rates, which is a big return, have to ask themselves why they're getting such a big return. Of course, anyone who understands finance knows that that's commensurate with high risk.
So these things can be weapons of mass destruction. We've seen the impacts that hybrids have had, and selling them to retail investors is something I think we should seriously consider banning in this country. At the moment, we're about to pass legislation that make it compulsory for financial advisers to disclose the risks of these hybrid securities to retail investors—to non-sophisticated investors. But I just say this: if even sophisticated investors can get badly burnt playing around with hybrid securities, it's doubly so for mum and dad investors, self-managed super funds and individuals who might be tempted by the lure of making high returns. I don't mind the use of hybrid securities when it comes to hedging risks in your own portfolios. I actually recommended that to people when I was a financial adviser. But to use the instruments yourself in high-risk strategies to make money is very much caveat emptor—buyer beware. Are we really aware of those risks? I don't think so, and I think the previous head of ASIC would agree with that.
The issue of hybrids is slightly different in this bill. It relates to how they might be wound up in the case of a financial crisis. We have some great information here from ASIC as to the size of the hybrid market in this country, and there is the data there on tier 1 and tier 2 instruments and how they would be wound up. Basically, we're assured that just because hybrid securities are complex and they may, when they're wound up, take the deposits or the savings away from investors—nearly always high-net-worth investors; not many low-income Australians would invest in hybrid securities, but I digress—it won't be an issue with the wind-up of hybrid securities either undermining or attacking people's deposits.
Financial system stability should be taken very seriously and should have our utmost attention and scrutiny. I just say to those people out there that are still disappointed that the Senate didn't have a public hearing that they're going to be disappointed when a number of us support this bill today. My belief is that nothing, probably, would have satisfied them, except having the Glass-Steagall Act enacted here in the Senate today. We do take this issue very seriously. Thank you for your submissions and for raising your concerns. It's always important that these things are brought to our attention and that we're held to account. I believe we've done our job today, and we'll continue to do our job.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:25): I move Liberal Democrats amendment on sheet 8379:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but, quite apart from the content of the bill, the Senate is of the view that no bank should ever be bailed out in Australia."
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (12:25): I rise to sum up the debate on the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I thank senators for their contributions to the debate.
The robust economic management and effective regulatory reform undertaken by the Howard government prepared us for the impact of the global financial crisis. Australia managed to avoid the devastating impact felt overseas, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Successive reviews, including the Murray financial system inquiry, have made the case that our crisis management powers need to be strengthened.
The lessons from the international experience of the global financial crisis have taught us that regulators need powerful, flexible and timely tools to resolve financial institutions in distress. Even though APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, has a reasonable toolkit to deal with these crises, there are deficiencies that need to be addressed to ensure it has the right tools available, should the need arise.
The bill before the Senate has two core themes: resolution planning before a crisis and resolution powers managing a crisis. The first core theme, resolution planning, refers to the process of banks and insurers working with APRA to ensure that they are ready for stress events. While APRA puts considerable effort into resolution planning, the legislative framework does not give APRA clear powers to make prudential standards for resolution. The bill addresses this shortcoming. As a result of the amendments in this bill, there will be a substantial reduction of the impact on the wider financial system and of the cost to taxpayers of a stress event.
The second core theme, resolution powers, refers to the tools that APRA can use to deal with distressed institutions and their groups. This bill strengthens APRA's toolkit by making amendments to:
enhance APRA's statutory and judicial management regimes—
which apply to a bank or insurer and their group companies—
to ensure their effective operation in a crisis;
enhance the scope and efficacy of APRA's existing directions powers—
which require banks and insurers to address prudential issues;
improve APRA's ability to implement a—
compulsory transfer of a business of a regulated entity;
ensure the effective conversion and write-off of capital instruments to which the conversion and write-off provisions in APRA's prudential standards apply;
enhance stay provisions and ensure that the exercise of APRA's powers does not trigger certain rights in the contracts of relevant entities within the same group;
enhance APRA's ability to respond when an Australian branch of a foreign regulated entity (foreign branch) may be in distress;
enhance the efficiency and operation of the Financial Claims Scheme and ensure that it supports the crisis resolution framework; and
enhance and simplify APRA's powers in relation to the wind-up or external administration of regulated entities under the Industry Acts, and other related matters.
In totality, these amendments will significantly strengthen APRA's capabilities as a resolution authority, accompanying its traditional core role as a prudential supervisor. They will ensure that Australia keeps up with international best practice for crisis management. While no-one wants to see the day that a bank or insurer is in distress, through this bill we are taking important steps to safeguard the financial system for the wellbeing of the people of Australia, and I commend the bill to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (12:30): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (12:30): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:31): Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and are supportive of the measures in this bill; however, we do note the government's poor record when it comes to standing up for ordinary Australians against the big end of town. When the Treasurer introduced this bill into the House of Representatives on 19 October 2017, he spoke of the government's taking-action-now approach to banks. Of course, we know that 'taking action now' was code for delaying the one action that was actually needed with respect to the banks—a royal commission. In fact, barely over a month after the Treasurer introduced this bill, he fronted up with the Prime Minister to announce, in the backflip of all backflips, a royal commission.
Labor is pleased that, after stubbornly resisting a royal commission and defending the banks for so long, the Prime Minister finally bowed to pressure from Labor and agreed to a royal commission into the banks. The Prime Minister spent more than 600 days fighting Labor's call for a royal commission into the banking and financial sector. This was despite the fact that there have been far too many examples of poor conduct on the part of the banks that have come to light in recent times, including illegal activity, misconduct, inappropriate financial advice, insurance claims unfairly declined, fraudulent activity, cover-ups, the targeting of whistleblowers, and irresponsible lending. It was disappointing that the Prime Minister only agreed to a royal commission when the banks gave him a permission slip. This is everything you need to know about this Prime Minister: he only agreed to Labor's royal commission when the banks told him he had to. Even then, we knew that he did not fully believe in a royal commission, declaring that it was 'regrettable'.
Turning to the provisions in the bill, I first want to talk about the measures in relation to credit cards, which we've been waiting for for quite some time. It was in 2015 that a Labor-led Senate inquiry first urged changes to credit card regulation, and it was in response to the recommendation of the inquiry that the Treasurer promised to progress changes to credit card regulation. It was back in May 2016 that the government promised to bring forward draft legislation 'in the near term'. Unfortunately, the Treasurer appeared to forget about this promise, and it took Labor pushing for these reforms to compel him to announce these measures in the 2017 budget. Despite the May 2016 promise of draft legislation 'in the near term', it took the Treasurer until August 2017 to release draft legislation. Thanks to the government's delays, most of these improvements to credit card protections won't come into force until 2019. It's disappointing that consumers will have to wait until 2019 for most of these protections to come into force. All this is from a Treasurer who loudly proclaimed his 'take action now' approach to the banks while shielding them from a royal commission.
With that said, we welcome these measures, which will improve consumer protections in relation to credit cards. Labor has consistently been calling for these measures. We're glad to see them finally put forward. One of the changes is the tightening of responsible lending requirements for credit cards. This bill would require that the suitability of a credit card contract be assessed on the consumer's ability to repay the credit limit within a certain period. That period is to be set in a legislative instrument made by ASIC. We will be watching closely to see what the period is and will listen to stakeholders when it's released. It's very important that banks and issuers lend responsibly, given the significant impact that credit card debt can have.
Another of the changes is the standardisation of the way credit card interest is calculated. Under this bill, credit card providers are prohibited from imposing interest charges retrospectively to a credit card balance or part of a balance that has had the benefit of an interest-free period. When respected governance adviser Phil Khoury did a review of the Code of Banking Practice, he looked at the way that banks were calculating credit card interest and found:
… few customers would be aware that this was happening at all, let alone understand the reasoning behind it. In my view, there are issues of substantive fairness … and of perceived fairness … be dealt with.
He said that one interest calculation method the banks were using was:
… unacceptable and must be prohibited. It is substantively unfair in applying interest and (if understood) would be perceived by customers as just plain 'tricky'.
In response to Mr Khoury's findings on this issue, Labor called on the government to bring about this change to the law. We're pleased to finally see it here before the Senate.
We're also pleased that banks will now be required to allow online cancellation of credit cards. It makes sense to require banks and other card issuers to allow simple online cancellation of credit cards. If you can apply for a credit card online, you should be able to cancel it online. Last year the CEO of one of the big four banks said that they didn't allow online cancellation, because they wanted to 'have a conversation' with the customer. I'm sure we can all imagine the nature of the conversation. There have been indications that credit card cancellation is designed to be difficult, so that a customer has to call up and be put through the hard sell. Choice, the consumer advocacy group, last year said:
It seems clear that the big banks' 'go slow' on card cancellations is about protecting revenue from interest and fees, with data showing the big banks slug consumers with an average annual fee of $146 compared to just $58 through a mutual or customer owned banks.
It is very easy to apply for credit cards online, but they're often much harder to cancel. This means that, if a customer sees a card that's a better deal, it's an effort to move over. Additionally, customers are ending up hanging on to old cards they didn't intend to keep, with access to more credit than they would have otherwise needed. Meanwhile, as long as customers have the old card, they can still be accruing fees. It's well past time that banks were required to allow online cancellation of credit cards.
We note that, under this bill, a bank may not be required to cancel a credit card where there is still a balance outstanding. We will watch this closely to make sure that this bill has an impact on helping customers get rid of unsuitable cards and switch to cards where they get a better deal. We note that this bill would also require banks to allow the reduction of credit card limits online; however, we note that the stakeholders have drawn attention to the fact that banks are not required to reduce credit limits below the minimum credit on the card. As the shadow Treasurer said in the other place, we'll watch closely to make sure that this bill does not have an effect such that banks merely increase the minimum limits on credit cards to circumvent this requirement.
With regard to schedules 1 and 2 and non-ADI lenders, schedules 1 and 2 of the bill will give APRA powers in relation to non-ADI lenders. The explanatory memorandum states that these powers are intended only to be used where there is a 'material risk' to the stability of the financial sector. According to the EM, it's not anticipated that these powers will need to be used in the immediate future, and they will be there to respond to potential future developments.
This bill also gives APRA the power to collect certain data from these lenders. ADI lenders, such as banks and credit unions, are subject to APRA's prudential requirements and ongoing supervision. These new powers for APRA are proposed in recognition of the fact that APRA has responsibilities in relation to the stability of the Australian financial system which are consistent with its core mandate of protecting depositors.
We note that some non-bank lenders have raised concerns about the scope of these powers. We recognise that non-ADI lenders can play an important role in ensuring competition against the banks, but we also believe that it is important that APRA is equipped with appropriate powers to safeguard the stability of the financial system. We note that, in response to concerns raised about the scope of powers in the exposure draft legislation, the application of these powers has been refined since the exposure draft stage of this bill.
Schedule 3 of the bill will allow smaller authorised deposit-taking institutions to use the word 'bank' in their business name should they choose to. Under this change, all ADIs can use the word 'bank' in their business name. Currently, APRA only permits ADIs with tier 1 capital exceeding $50 million to use the terms 'bank', 'banker' and 'banking'. There are a number of smaller ADIs who would benefit from the use of these terms. The Customer Owned Banking Association represents credit unions and building societies as well as mutual banks. We note that the Customer Owned Banking Association has also been supportive of this change.
Labor welcomes the fact that credit unions and building societies will have the option to call themselves banks if they choose to. As the EM points out, these changes will align community expectations in respect of the use of the term 'bank' with the fact that ADIs are prudentially supervised by APRA and deposits are covered by the Financial Claims Scheme guarantee. It's therefore appropriate that these ADIs can use this term, and Labor welcomes this change to the law.
While we welcome this bill, we note that, when debating bills like this, the government always seems to try to play down Labor's strong record on banks and consumer protections. This conveniently ignores landmark reforms by the previous Labor government like the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. This was the first single-standard, nationally consistent regime for consumer credit regulation and oversight in this country—the first, by a Labor government in 2009. That act gave oversight to consumer credit, including home loans and credit cards, to a national regulator, ASIC, and it included what are proving to be very important responsible-lending obligations.
But what those opposite really want to write out of history is Labor's enactment of the Future of Financial Advice, otherwise known as FOFA, reforms. They want to write these out of history because the coalition's previous opposition to the FOFA laws now looks so embarrassing. The coalition voted against the FOFA laws in the House. They voted against the FOFA laws in the Senate. And, when they got into government, they tried to gut FOFA, first by legislation and then by regulation. Labor had to fight tooth and nail to protect the Future of Financial Advice legislation, and we were very lucky—and indeed the Australian people were very lucky—that we prevailed under this sustained and egregious attack.
Just to take one example, ASIC's Financial advice: fees for no service report revealed in October 2016 that the big four banks and AMP had spent years—years—taking fees from customers for financial advice, services that were never actually provided. ASIC found that there were great systems in place for recording incoming revenue, but there was very little in place to prove that the customers were actually getting anything in return. According to the latest numbers from ASIC, the number of customer accounts affected by that practice is over 300,000—300,000! The amount of fees improperly charged is over $200 million, excluding interest.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Order, Senator O'Neill. It being 12.45, I shall now proceed to senators' statements.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:45): I want to briefly mention two hidden gems of Australia, and they are the Indian Ocean territories of Christmas and Cocos islands. But before I do that, I want to mention another island, which is dear to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the island of Tonga in the Pacific. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would be aware that there has been quite a severe cyclone through Tonga, Cyclone Gita, category 4, which has caused widespread destruction of Tonga, including the destruction of their parliament house—where I had the privilege to lead an Australian parliamentary delegation late last year. Whilst so far there are no reported deaths, there have been reports of three people being injured and up to 40 per cent of homes damaged.
As one who has lived through a few cyclones myself, I know the horror of being in the path of the eye of the cyclone, which the people of Tonga have experienced. I know the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is on standby to provide help, including military assistance and humanitarian supplies. I want to extend my best wishes to all of the people of Tonga, particularly the parliamentarians, and I met with a lot of them, including the Prime Minister. I certainly hope that the recovery is speedy for the people of that nation.
On almost the other side of the earth are the islands of Christmas and Cocos. Both were originally British protectorates of some form, but since the 1970s, following their own decision, they became part of Australia and part of the Indian Ocean territories of Australia. Recently, I was privileged again to attend on Christmas and Cocos islands—after an absence of 18 years—with the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, which is conducting an inquiry into tourism matters in the north of Australia. That committee will no doubt, in due course, report on its findings in relation to its specific brief of tourism potential and opportunities on Christmas and Cocos islands.
I will say in passing—I don't want to pre-empt anything that the committee will report on to parliament later on—that they are both unique islands. They are a bit expensive to get to, and a bit difficult to get to, but for Australians who have been everywhere, they certainly should put Christmas and Cocos islands on their bucket list because they are both magnificent islands. They are both quite different, but in their own way are wonderful places within Australia. I say to those who are looking for something different, you should make plans to visit Cocos and Christmas islands.
I won't go into the issues of transport, cargo and those sorts of things, which the committee will report on in due course, but I do want to mention some other things which still need some attention from the Australian government. A long time ago, I used to be the minister for territories and used to spend a lot of time on both islands. I have to say, 18 or so years later, the issues really haven't changed much, and the difficulties that people who live on those islands experienced are still there.
Christmas Island is made up of a population of about 2,000 people, I think. About 60 per cent are of Chinese descent, about 20 per cent are of Malay descent and the rest are Australians or others. On Cocos Island, most of the population are Cocos Malays, who were brought out by the Clunies-Ross family almost a century ago, to what were then uninhabited islands, to conduct copra operations on the island. They are great examples of multiculturalism and how people from all faiths and backgrounds live together peacefully. In fact, the way of life on those islands is an attraction to many of the tourists we came across there. Many people from Muslim countries go to those islands because they feel safe there. There's great cooperation and friendship and welcoming from all of the people of both islands to any visitors.
Christmas Island has its issues. The phosphate mine that's been going there for a long time is about to run out—the lease of the mines is coming to an end. The company is trying to extend that for five years. There is, of course, opposition from those who believe that the natural environment will be impacted upon. But it's something that I think probably should be given a final five years to provide employment for the people on Christmas Island. Until such time as another source of employment can be found, that is one of the few things that gainfully employs people on the island. On that basis, there's the old Christmas Island casino, which many will remember operated in the late 1980s, as I recall. When I was a minister in the late 1990s, the casino had shut down because of some action taken by the then Indonesian government. The licence was taken away. But there is a renewed attempt to get that casino going again. The promoters believe that they could attract a huge clientele from Indonesia and South-East Asia. As long as it doesn't cost the Australian government anything, I would be a great supporter of it, as I was years ago when I was the minister. I would hope that the Australian government will look seriously at renewing the casino licence as it will provide much-needed accommodation and even more-needed employment for many of the residents of Christmas Island. Land release is a real issue on Christmas Island in particular. During our visit I was pleased to catch up with the relatively new administrator, Natasha Griggs, who is doing a wonderful job there—very professional. It was good to catch up with her and see the respect with which she's held by the local people.
Moving on to Cocos Island, there are a number of issues. It is a wonderful island—a coral atoll—a really magical place. The airstrip there was important back in the old days of the kangaroo route, when the planes landed on Cocos as they hopped across from Australia to London. And, of course, during the war it was a very significant military base. It was often said to be Australia's only aircraft carrier, in that you could land aircraft in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It needs upgrading. Fortunately, the government's white paper indicated that funding would be set aside for the upgrading of that airstrip. Upgrading it will not only help our defence and military personnel but it will allow Virgin to fly in bigger and different planes, which will help travel to there. Accommodation on Cocos has improved much in the last 20 years, but it is still only relatively tiny. The availability of land is an issue. But a lot of people are looking at new resorts and new investment there.
There's also a very interesting story about the Clunies-Ross family. I caught up again with John Clunies-Ross, who I have known for many years. He's an interesting fellow and it was good to see him again and relive some of the history of Cocos. One bit of history I wasn't aware of concerned the survivors from the German ship Emden, which was sunk by HMAS Sydney in the First World War. They came to Direction Island in the Cocos group and then stole a boat of the Clunies-Rosses', took it back to Germany and came back there as heroes. But some artefacts have recently been found in the Western Australian Museum, and there's now a little bit of a contest about who actually owns the artefacts, which are the spoils of war. They are two islands that I recommend many Australians should try to get to during their lifetimes.
Home Stretch Campaign
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:55): This afternoon I want to talk about the Home Stretch campaign. Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I wonder how old you were when you moved out of home. I wonder how old many of my fellow senators were when they did. It was not unusual in our youth to move out at a reasonably young age, but that is not the norm today. And I doubt, Mr Acting Deputy President, that your daughters moved out of home very quickly. I'm sure they hung on as long as they could while they could do their university education with all that love, care and support from your wonderful family around them.
I did actually leave home to go to university at the age of 18—at least I tried to. I got myself a flat with some friends. You know, it was slightly dysfunctional—they were great friends, but I don't know that it was the wisest idea, and about three days into it I crashed my car and my mother said to me, 'Look, Louise; this really isn't going to work.' She sorted me out and she sent me off to university college. I spent the next few years moving between home and university college.
So I always had the support of my family and a home to go back to on weekends, holidays or whenever I needed it. But young people who are in the out-of-home care system in Australia do not have this option. Government support for out-of-home care ends at age 18, which means that these young people are left with little support and few options. So I was really pleased today to host a briefing on the Home Stretch campaign here in parliament with my colleague Senator Cameron. This campaign is asking governments around the country, including the Commonwealth government, to facilitate national reform to continue the option of state care until the age of 21.
In our briefing today I heard a really inspirational story from a young man named Dylan, and it's really important that we listen firsthand to the experiences of young people when talking about these issues. He lived in out-of-home care from the age of 12, and I was really moved to talk to him about his personal story. He moved in to out-of-home care because the school found him sleeping on the school oval because he could no longer go home. So that's when his intervention started. He was with a foster family for a short time and moved between residential care houses. He'd been working with the department on a live-in care plan which involved moving from Melbourne to Queensland to be with his father, who he'd only just found and begun contact with.
Right before he was due to move out and move to Queensland, these plans for him fell apart. And the department, of all things—and this is not an unusual situation—told him that he should start looking for homeless shelters. He didn't have any other options. He was luckier than most. He was offered transitional housing, but then at the age of 21 he was homeless again. He spent most of the next two years homeless, sleeping on couches, jumping between different mates' houses and, in the short-term, as he explained it, accommodation in terms of sharing and boarding with people that simply did not feel safe for him.
It's not surprising to know that these circumstances made it very difficult for Dylan to find a job. I'm really pleased to say that Dylan, now almost 24, talked to us about how he's finally found his feet. He's worked hard to secure rental accommodation and he has a really good job, and I was just so inspired today to hear how well he's doing. But too often we have from the Turnbull government a solution that simply says, 'Just get a job.' What Dylan told us firsthand is that it's simply too hard to get a job without a decent education, which is really hard to get without stable housing. How wise of him. You can't get a job without a roof over your head, if you don't know which suburb you're going to live in from one week to the next and if you've got to spend your day working out where you're going to live next. He also told us very firmly that he believes he would have been able to find a home and work much sooner if he'd had more support and a stable home. Despite all the challenges in his life he has managed to change his story, and I really want to commend him for that.
Dylan's challenges are not unusual. The latest homelessness survey by Swinburne University found 63 per cent of homeless young people are care leavers. So Dylan's story is probably one of the better ones, and that's alarming. The reason he's able to tell his story is because he's finally on his feet. But we know, devastatingly, that more than half of care leavers end up unemployed, in jail, or as a teenage parent within the first 12 months of leaving state care. It's no wonder, without the support that they need. Can the parents here imagine it? Children or young people do not very often leave home at 18 anymore, and if they do, they're always welcome to come home to do their washing and for a friendly ear. Imagine losing the support of a case worker you've relied on for guidance and support, not to mention that in their 18 years many of these young people have experienced trauma beyond what we can even imagine. Many of these young people are still at school when they turn 18, and I cannot imagine the stress of having nowhere to live and having your state care end while you're still doing your year 12 studies.
The Home Stretch campaign is advocating for change. It's really important to see that in the United Kingdom, Canada and even in the US, foster care continues until the age of 21. The outcomes are absolutely amazing: halving homelessness rates from 39 per cent down to less than 20 per cent; slashing drug and alcohol dependence from 15.8 per cent to 2.5 per cent; tripling education engagement from 3.6 per cent to nine per cent; reducing hospitalisation and arrests; and massively improving mental and physical health. Reforms like this have a long way to go in reducing the intergenerational disadvantage that we know is precipitated by life in out-of-home care. Deloitte Access Economics have done a cost-benefit analysis on how it might play out in an Australian context and found that the Australian government would see an average return on investment of $2.13 for every $1 spent. It's an absolute no-brainer.
I really want to thank Paul McDonald, CEO of Anglicare Victoria and chair of the Home Stretch campaign, for taking the time to brief my colleagues on this issue today. Some might say: 'What's this got to do with the Commonwealth? The foster care system is not our business.' But the simple fact is that when people move out of home at 18, if they do not have any other income and support, it is the Australian taxpayer that is responsible for the welfare support for those people, responsible for Commonwealth rent assistance and responsible for youth allowance. If we don't get right the life start that those young people need, then their prospect of employment and a positive life future is diminished. So this should be very much on the Commonwealth's agenda. When young people turn 18, if we want them to stay in state care and have the states pick up ongoing responsibility for that continuity of care and continuity of placement, then the Commonwealth needs to be at the table.
Finally, I really want to thank Dylan for his bravery and his advocacy, for standing up for a better life for other young people like him. Surely these people—some of the most vulnerable young people in our nation—deserve our support and care.
Tasmanian State Election
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (13:05): It's a pleasure to take this opportunity today to make a contribution in the senators' statements period of time. I'm again taking an opportunity to speak about things Tasmanian, and the thing at the front of most Tasmanians' minds is the pending state election, coming up on 3 March. Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I knew you'd be excited by that. I certainly am!
As we march onward to that date, things are becoming much clearer about the choice that Tasmanians have with regard to who they vote for at that election. It's becoming clearer what all the parties are putting on the table and what Tasmanians will be able to choose from on 3 March. As I said last week, it is a very stark contrast between the Liberal government, the Labor opposition and the Greens on the crossbench. That choice the voters have is stability or returning to the dark old days that we experienced in Tasmania between 2010 and 2014.
Coming up here to Canberra gives you an opportunity to step back, to not be inside what's happening on the ground in Tasmania and to actually get an overall sense of what the parties are doing. You get the opportunity to read media clippings and talk to locals over the phone about what they take out of what's going on in Tasmania. I'm really excited today to go through some of those observations, some of the things that candidates in the election have been saying, including some of the promises they've been making and some of the proposed explanations they've put on record as to how their policies would be rolled out.
What is concerning about the opposition leader in Tasmania, Ms Bec White, who leads the Tasmanian Labor Party in the state parliament, is her inability to stick to what she says she's going to do. She's had to take multiple positions on a number of issues. She promises at one point in time that she's going to do something in order to convince Tasmanians to vote for her, only to then, down the track, because she's been spooked or because something has raised concerns in her mind, change her position to try to kill off a political issue. Rather than sticking to things through conviction, she changes her position. This paints a picture of an individual—that is, the leader of the Labor opposition, Ms White—who will do anything and who will say anything to get into government and hang onto power. And that's something Tasmanians do need to be concerned about.
In the last couple weeks we've seen the opposition, in a matter of hours, show how the state budget would blow out under them, if they were elected. This is the party seeking to win the election and form government. Hundreds of millions of dollars were added to their expenditure because they were writing policy on the run in response to the Tasmanian Liberal's health policy—a very good policy, which was announced on Sunday. As I mentioned, we've already had the backflips, some of which I'll detail. There has been a lack of detail on their policy proposals: how they'll work, how they'll fund them, who they'll impact, who they won't impact. Of course, their big omission is a clear plan to take Tasmania onto a stronger future, to the next level. Not one idea, not one statement of substance about how they would improve Tasmania as a state economically, socially or on any of those fronts. Not one idea.
What we do know is that Ms White will work with the crossbenches and will happily form a minority government, despite what she says now.
Senator Urquhart: You know that's not right, Jonathon.
Senator DUNIAM: I will take that interjection. Senator Urquhart says that she thinks that's wrong, but I will read a quote from Ms White, the opposition leader. On the question of minority government in Tasmania, she said in May last year:
Testing your numbers on the floor of the house is a different proposition … We'd reserve our right to make a decision about whether we would …
It sounds pretty clear to me: she's happy to go into the parliament and, as we also saw between 2010 and 2014, do a deal. I remember David Bartlett, the former Labor Premier of Tasmania, stood up before the 2010 election and said that doing a deal with the Greens is like doing a deal with the devil, but straight after the election he did one.
Senator Chisholm: Why don't you run on your record?
Senator DUNIAM: I'm happy to come to our record in a moment, Senator Chisholm. The quote demonstrates that Ms White is desperate to get into government, will say anything, will do anything and will do deals. That's what we need to be concerned about. It is quite clear, despite what she says now in the lead-up to the election, that she will do a deal with the Greens.
A number of positions taken in a variety of policy areas require some scrutiny. Ms White said that Labor would close the Ashley Youth Detention Centre in Deloraine, a significant piece of infrastructure, a significant employer in the community. In October she stated:
However, we recognise the crucial employment the facility provides for the local community, therefore, we believe the infrastructure and educational expertise could be used …
She was going to close it one day and keep it open the next, all because the government said, 'It's there, it's part of our system of youth justice; let's keep it.' She was rattled, and she backflipped. The Tasmanian government established the Office of the Coordinator-General in Launceston, a part of our state which has had its fair share of economic woes. Labor specifically announced in it's Economic Direction Statement:
Labor will abolish the role of Coordinator General …
Rebecca White has had multiple positions on this entity:
We have decided that the money that is spent on the Coordinator General's office … could be better directed to fund regional economic development officers right across the state.
That was 26 September last year. Then on 17 November last year the shadow Treasurer and finance minister, Scott Bacon, undermined Ms White by saying:
Labor has not proposed the closure of the Launceston office—
a complete 180. That position lasted less than three months. Tasmanian Labor re-announced on 31 January this year that it would, after all, abolish the Office of the Coordinator-General in Tasmania. We also have the on-again off-again position with regard to the northern prison. We've already seen a number of positions in relation to extending high schools to year 12. They say out one side of their mouth that they want to roll it back and then go around saying out the other side that they will keep it. Which is it? Tasmanians need to know.
On health policy, which was slated to be the keystone issue of this election, the one deciding issue, Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman announced on Sunday a huge policy relating to an investment in health care in Tasmania, over $700 million over a six-year period. Then Ms White, a bit rattled, was attempting to explain her policy on the run and mucked up in the worst of ways the costings for her policy, saying that Labor is promising to fix the health crisis by front-ending commitments and front-ending staff employment in the first two years. She went on to say that the $560 million was over three or four years, completely contradicting her own policy document, which makes no mention of front-ending expenditure with regard to staff or health services. The document states:
The staged plan will be rolled out over six years.
… … …
Labor's plan will deliver more beds over the next six years—
not what Ms White said in relation to front-ending funding.
We have a $700 million health plan which will reach out to, support and sustainably invest in communities in regional Tasmania, the north, the north-west and the south over a long period of time. These costings have been submitted to the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance, which I doubt Labor have done themselves. The choice is very clear: you have a Liberal government in Tasmania that has a record it can stand proudly on and a very clear plan outlined for the future of the state, to take it to the next level, and an opposition leader who changes her position every day of the week.
South Australia
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:15): I want to speak today, on Valentine's Day, about one of my greatest loves: my state of South Australia. We've got a reputation for being a clean green state, and so many of us love that. We lead the way in renewable energy technologies: we're home to the world's largest lithium-ion battery, we've got wind power going gangbusters and we're building a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta to replace a tired old dirty coal power station. South Australia is leading the way. We've put electric car manufacturing on the national agenda. We can come back, we know, from the closure of Holden. We're savvy, we're thinkers; we think about things differently and we get on and get them done. We've got an abundance of fresh produce and, quite frankly, the best wine in the world. I see Senator Ruston is here in the chamber. Senator Ruston, may I say I think we have the best roses as well!
The Murray is our state's food bowl and playground and has great cultural significance to our local Aboriginal nations. We're a state of fighters. I'm driven by the Murray communities that want me, as their South Australian senator, to stand up for our beautiful river and fight against the big greedy corporate irrigators in upstream states who, purely for their own greedy selves, are ripping away environmental water largely unchecked, siphoning it off and ripping off the river.
South Australia is incredibly beautiful, and tourism is a vital part of keeping our economy ticking. Kangaroo Island attracts over 200,000 visitors each year. Kangaroo Island's identity as a clean green destination is a core part of the island's economy and a key reason it has so many visitors each year. It adds to the broader South Australian history of looking after our most precious places. It is a place that is treasured by South Australians and locals alike, and we know that it is an iconic destination for visitors from the rest of the country and the world. It is where Australians get to see sea lions and New Zealand and Australian fur seals, it is where we have nationally and internationally threatened seabirds and it is where great white sharks lurk just off the coast.
The Kangaroo Island community is fighting hard, like other coastal communities in South Australia, against oil and gas drilling in the Great Australian Bight. It's folly to think, after the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, that the Liberal Party would even consider allowing drilling in the Great Australian Bight. This pristine wilderness is home to some of the most diverse marine life on the planet—it's right there in our backyard. It's a nursery for the southern right whale. All South Australian politicians—all Australian politicians—should be protecting the Great Australian Bight and the thousands of Australian fishery and tourism jobs that rely upon it. This isn't just about doing the bidding of corporate donors. We need to be standing up for our environment and our future generations. Not only would drilling in the bight put the environment at risk; this would be a dud project for South Australian jobs as well, with most jobs, the very few that would eventually exist, going to people who reside outside of South Australia—most of them outside of Australia altogether.
In South Australia we have a strong sense of what's right and what's wrong, and we stand up for what we believe in. Over the years, thousands of people have marched against uranium mining in the far north. They've protested against locking up asylum seekers at Woomera and Baxter detention centres. Thankfully, those hellholes have now been closed. South Australians have rallied together to demonstrate against the Adani coalmine. Even though it's in Far North Queensland, South Australians know that in the long run it's bad for our nation and bad for our planet. We've stood up against drilling in the Great Australian Bight and storing the world's nuclear waste in our beautiful state's backyard. South Australians have come together to ban live animal exports and stand up to animal cruelty. This year South Australians gathered on the steps of Parliament House to call for a date that we can all celebrate as our nation's day of significance. To change the date is something that South Australians want to see happen.
I have marched in some of the biggest rallies that Adelaide has ever seen, from action on climate change, marriage equality and, the biggest of all, the rally against the Iraq war. People power has defeated state government nuclear waste dump plants—thank goodness for that—and we'll keep fighting against any risk to the beautiful Flinders Ranges and the farming land in Kimba.
I stand with the traditional owners in the Flinders Ranges who are scared and angry about the prospect of their ancient connection to their land being desecrated by storing nuclear waste in their spiritual homeland. Successive governments have failed to deliver a solution for managing this nuclear waste, while continuing to produce and, indeed, increase this waste. We have a responsibility to manage Australia's waste to the highest possible standards, and that doesn't mean dumping it in remote Indigenous communities.
We have a welcoming community in South Australia. South Australians are proud of our multicultural heritage and our rich future. I'm encouraged and inspired every day that Australians are doing what they can to make a positive difference to their communities. In South Australia, many of them are befriending new neighbours, who have come such a long way to start a new life in safety in our great state. Many South Australians volunteer their time to help these people feel less vulnerable, more welcome and part of our South Australian community. As South Australians, we have held the door open to new migrants from every corner of the earth. The cultural and economic contribution that they make is being celebrated in our great state. We hold the door open to new, exciting business ventures that will benefit the state and take it into the future.
We know that South Australia cops it from the federal government and some of the eastern states, but, I tell you what, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We've got so much to offer. We've got such a bright future. We're forging our own path rather than waiting for the rest of the country to catch up.
This year I will be standing up for South Australians who want to see our stagnant wage growth boosted, increasing the ability for young South Australians to get jobs and to get the education that they need. We know that the government has continued to cut essential services—schools funding, childcare funding, all the things that are meant to help families who are struggling. I stand in solidarity with our many, many early childhood educators who, next month, will be walking off the job to send a message to the government that they deserve better. Many of these people work and live in South Australia and they do deserve a pay rise, and they do deserve better treatment by this government.
Next week in Adelaide, thousands of students will be arriving at university for the first time without a clue of what kind of debt they will be left with at the end of their degrees. They don't know if they'll have access to the tutors that they need or whether, indeed, there'll even be space in the classrooms. These are South Australians that deserve the backing of their federal government and the backing of their federal politicians too. I won't be standing by and letting young people in my state, who can barely afford to go to university, pay their rent and bills and cover the costs of their textbooks, be forgotten by this government any longer.
The Nationals
National Rugby League
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (13:25): Yesterday I met with the delegation of AWU members from across Australia. They were in town to talk about gas, and particularly domestic gas as a feedstock for the places where they worked. They included Steve from Incitec Pivot in Brisbane, which I had the opportunity to ask a question about yesterday, and Adam from QAL in Gladstone, both in my state of Queensland. As I mentioned, their workplace is vulnerable from the high cost of domestic gas. So we see across Australia thousands of jobs on the line, causing great uncertainty for families across Australia. That is really driving the ambition from these guys as they meet with people across the parliament to ensure that there is a focus on this issue so that it can be solved.
I think that we need to look at the message that they would have seen from Senator Canavan earlier this week, when he was in the media saying, 'Mission accomplished.' He was basically saying that, as far as he was concerned, the trouble of the high cost of domestic gas had largely been solved. Well, I can say—and this is straight from the workers themselves—that they certainly doesn't feel this, their workplaces don't feel this and their families don't feel it either. Incitec Pivot, in particular, has the clock ticking on securing affordable gas and, if they are not able to do that in the next couple of months, that is going to have a devastating effect for hundreds of families who have workers at that plant. There is also the flow-on effect from that, because the fertiliser that is provided from that plant has so many uses throughout the rest of Australia.
When you look at the impact of this and the flow-on effects across Queensland and Australia, is it any wonder that the Nationals are considered so out of touch? When you look at this, since the election, they really have been distracted. What we've seen since the federal election campaign is that they've really been distracted by issues that don't go to the heart of the political interests of regional Queensland. They've been distracted by One Nation. They haven't been able to work out how they're going to deal with One Nation. We saw that in the federal election campaign, we've seen it in this chamber and we saw it in the Queensland election as well. They've obviously been distracted by citizenship issues at the same time. We know they lost their deputy leader, Senator Nash. We know that they also temporarily lost Senator Canavan as well. Then, in more recent days and weeks, they've obviously been distracted by their leader, Barnaby Joyce. What that means is that the focus on the needs of Queenslanders has been completely out the window since the federal election in 2016.
We only need to look at what they've done. We're almost halfway through this term, and the Nationals have failed to deliver for regional Queensland. They made a series of promises in the run-up to the federal election campaign that they have failed to deliver on. What they have basically done is purport to have all these job-creating policies that have been a hoax to the people of regional Queensland. These policies have been nothing more than a mirage that is really creating cynicism about the National Party in regional Queensland. The obvious, glaring example of this is the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. They talk about it through regional Queensland endlessly, but it has not delivered one project or created one job in Queensland. Is it any wonder that the people of Queensland would be cynical about the National Party's promises?
But there's no better example, in my view, of the failure of the National Party to deliver for regional Queensland than the regional jobs packages that were promised almost two years ago. We know the economic challenges that the people of regional Queensland face. We know the high unemployment. We know the high youth unemployment. Two years ago, they went to these towns and promised regional jobs packages. They have not spent one cent. We know the confusion that was created with Senator Nash going and the dysfunction within the National Party, but it's the people of regional Queensland who are missing out, and there's no better example of this than the regional jobs packages. But this is what is motivating Labor.
We know the cynicism that it has created, and we know that people are looking for alternatives in regional Queensland, and that is what is driving Labor in terms of the policies that we want to focus on. The most recent example of that occurred on Friday when I and my colleague Senator Watt travelled with the federal Labor leader to Gladstone. We made promises that are going to have a real impact on the lives of people in that area. We promised $100 million for the port access road in Gladstone. This will enable more trucks to use the Gladstone port. It will also stop them from having to travel through Toowoomba to the Port of Brisbane, so it will mean quicker access to the port for exports and so on. Labor said we will prioritise this $100 million promise, if we are to win the next election., and be confident that it will have a significant impact on the lives of people in Gladstone, increase the capacity of the port and lead to more jobs being created as a result.
The other announcement we made whilst we were in the region was a $176 million commitment to partner with the state government for the Rookwood Weir proposal. It is something that those on the other side have talked about endlessly. Labor were prepared to step in and announce that we would fund it. This proposal will be able to deliver jobs and opportunities, particularly in agriculture, for regional Queensland. What you see from Labor is a real focus on projects and proposals that are going to have an impact on the lives of regional Queenslanders—no more mirages and no more hoaxes, just real, practical proposals that the people of Queensland can have confidence that a federal Labor government will deliver.
You're starting to see a real contrast in terms of what federal Labor is talking about in regional Queensland to what those opposite are talking about. That is, I think, what is driving the cynicism amongst the community in Central Queensland and the way that they see the National Party. We saw it during state election campaign and we are seeing it increasingly at the federal level as well. Labor will continue to focus on practical projects in regional Queensland that are going to have a direct benefit to the people that live there—no more hoaxes, no more mirages, no more talk, no more putting all your eggs in the one basket, which is what we've seen from those opposite. Labor will look to make sure we can diversify the economies in regional Queensland and also focus on practical projects that are going to have an impact on people's lives.
There's one more issue I want to talk about. Whilst I would be very, very critical of the National Party senators in this place and what they've done in regional Queensland, there is one issue that I'm sure would unite us, and that's the issue around State of Origin. What we've seen today is the NRL announce that a State of Origin game in 2020 will be going to Adelaide. This is on top of a game in 2019 going to Perth. For those who don't know, State of Origin is Queensland versus New South Wales. This is something that is tribal in Queensland and New South Wales. It's a game that belongs in Queensland and New South Wales. I'm a strong advocate for one of the games being played in Townsville, and I would certainly advocate that a State of Origin should be played in Townsville long before it's played in Perth and long before it's played in Adelaide.
I can understand why Perth and Adelaide would want a State of Origin game. I've got no qualms with those state governments pursuing these opportunities, but, if they want a rugby league game, they should pursue a test match. The State of Origin should be in Queensland, and it should be in New South Wales. If the NRL are looking at having a game outside the capital cities, that should be in Townsville. It is such a great rugby league town: it's obviously the home of Johnathan Thurston and the Cowboys, and they will have a new stadium soon. If anyone is going to get a game of football outside those capital cities, it should be Townsville and not the NRL.
We know the history of this sport in those states. It was a failure in Western Australia for the Western Reds that were temporarily in Perth. We know Adelaide had the Rams, but it was, again, a failure of the community to get behind them. If the NRL want to grow the game and create more opportunities—and that's admirable—they should look at having test matches there.
The State of Origin is sacred in Queensland and New South Wales, and it's absolutely the case that the games should be played in Queensland and New South Wales. Opportunities to expand the game should be looked at in test matches and other areas. So I'd urge the NRL to reconsider the decision that they've made. Look at other opportunities to grow the game in the states of South Australia and Western Australia, but please, please, keep the State of Origin for Queensland and New South Wales, the home of rugby league. (Time expired)
Immigration
Natural Resources
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (13:35): The government, in a recently published opinion piece, crowed that, since Labor left office in 2010, Australia's population has grown by 1.5 million people. But the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that, since Labor left office, Australia's population has grown by twice that figure, at 3.3 million people. The truth is that Australia's population has grown by 3.3 million in just five years and that more than two million of these individuals were born overseas. These two million individuals include a million or so skilled migrants who have arrived on a permanent visa, a million or so foreign students with work rights, 87,000 individuals on 457 visas, 63,000 people who have overstayed their visa and are now hiding from the government, and 85,000 people who have permanent visas under our humanitarian entry program.
Every one of the 3.3 million individuals added to our population since Labor left office needs water and other essential services, yet this government has done nothing about water security. Not a single dam has been given the go-ahead since Labor left office. It is reckless and a national disgrace because Australia is the driest continent on earth and prone to severe and prolonged drought.
The government and Labor's strategy is to reduce the consumption of water by increasing the price. Let me bring the people's attention to Agenda 21, which was signed by Australia and 176 countries around the world. In chapter 18, it is their agenda to privatise water in countries other than Third World nations. I believe the same plan for increased prices and privatisation is lined up for our electricity. This approach is rejected by One Nation because it affects the most vulnerable in our society.
It has been widely reported that Cape Town, in South Africa, with a population of 3.7 million people, will run out of water by 21 April this year. They say it's a 300-year drought year. The fact is that the government in South Africa failed to provide water security. Shortly, two million people are expected to line up for their allowance of 50 litres of water a day because no water will flow from their taps in Cape Town.
We are arrogant if we think that it can't happen here in Australia. Australia has the highest population growth of any developed country in the world, at 1.6 per cent a year. In New Zealand, the growth is one per cent, but the recently elected Labour government has announced that it is cutting back on immigration. The United States, at 0.7 per cent, and the UK, at 0.6 per cent, are well below one per cent.
Here's the problem. The government, which is the Liberal and National parties, and Labor before it have set annual immigration numbers without a single thought to the end result. Labor relies on votes from ethnic minority enclaves. Labor knows that new migrants tend to vote Labor, so it wants a large immigration program, no matter the cost to existing citizens. The Liberals pander to foreign-owned multinationals and other big businesses which benefit from a bigger population size. It is partly huge donations; it is partly outdated ideology; and it is partly detachment from the lives of real Australians. Both the current government and, previously, Labor have used migration to disguise the fact that they have no answer to the economic problem that has seen productivity per person in Australia falling since 1990, and with it our standard of living.
In Norway, payments for their oil and gas have gone into a sovereign wealth fund which effectively makes every Norwegian a millionaire. But in Australia we have received little benefit from our gas reserves because this government thinks it's okay for foreign-owned multinationals to take our gas without paying for it and to pay no corporate income tax on the profits made from our gas. It's a national disgrace that we do not get royalties paid on the vast majority of gas taken from Commonwealth water and that we allow foreign-owned multinationals to lock up our gas and oil until it suits them to sell it at a profit. One Nation's policy is that companies with retention leases over 10 years will be subject to a use-it-or-lose-it policy. I know there are Australian companies, which will create jobs, that are willing to put some of these leases into production. The current government is timid and frightened of multinationals. Labor is timid and frightened of multinationals.
In the past 10 years, two out of every three people added to Australia's population were born overseas. This level of immigration exceeds our ability to cope. We know that because we are experiencing problems directly linked to excessive immigration, including rising water, electricity and gas prices, lack of public transport, and stress on our education and medical services. Housing prices in the major cities have surged, meaning fewer Australians own their own home. If most Australians don't benefit from these excessively high levels of immigration, then we have to ask the question: who benefits from high levels of immigration? The answer: big business and morally bankrupt politicians.
Let's be honest: the Liberals and the Nationals—and, of course, I've got to throw the Greens in here—are bereft of any approach to respond to falling productivity, other than excessive immigration. We are increasingly going into debt to pay for basic services, and that debt will one day need to be repaid. We are increasingly in the hands of our creditors. Are we heading down the same path as Sri Lanka and Greece, who lost their ports and airports to their creditors?
The level of immigration matters. Let me say that again—the level of immigration matters. The time has come for the government and the opposition to listen to what Australians want in respect of immigration. They were prepared to listen to what Australians had to say on same-sex marriage, but they won't let Australians have a say on immigration numbers. Every survey done for decades has said Australians want lower immigration numbers. The Scanlon survey, which has been conducted annually for a decade, asked: what do you think is the most important problem facing Australia today? In 2017 the issues that worried most Australians were the economy and the quality of the government and politicians. The third issue was immigration. Of course, these three issues are interrelated.
The coalition and Labor know Australians want lower immigration, but, for their own selfish reasons, refuse to act. In October 2017, the Australian Population Research Institute issued its report on voters' views on immigration. It noted that there was increased public concern about the quality of life and that 74 per cent of voters thought Australia did not need any more people. Voters were worried about growing ethnic diversity.
One Nation's immigration policy differs from that of all the other parties because our policy is in the interests of all Australians. Because of my stance on immigration I have been called racist. It is what happens in Australia when you raise issues some people don't like. As the leader of One Nation, I recognise the invaluable contribution of overseas-born Australians, who have enriched Australia by committing to our values, our laws, our political institutions and equality between the sexes. At times during the 1990s the level of immigration was too high and there were problems, but the contribution of migrants and their families is undeniable when migrants embrace our way of life and do not come here to change it. We cannot ignore first-, second- and third-generation migrants, whatever their ideology, who violently reject our democratic values and institutions. I believe Australia has the right to choose the number and mix of migrants to ensure migration is in the national interest of existing citizens, because the interests of existing citizens come first. Immigration numbers are too high and this needs to be addressed. Let the people of Australia have their say.
Tasmanian State Election
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (13:45): The Tasmanian people have benefitted in the foundational and fundamental transformation in their personal prospects, household budgets and job prospects as a result of the federal and state elections that removed Greens-Labor minority governments both here in Canberra and in Hobart, in 2013 and 2014 respectively. Removed was a dysfunctional government in Hobart that saw a dysfunctional prison system with riots. We saw a dysfunctional education system where, indeed, on one occasion the state government had slated a state school for closure, and publicly announced it, whilst at the same time the Labor government had a sign up indicating building was taking place as part of the Building the Education Revolution. So, building was actually taking place and workers were there at the Warrane school undertaking these improvements being heralded by federal Labor whilst the state Labor-Greens government was busily slating this school for closure. That was the dysfunction that the people of Tasmania suffered under the Greens-Labor minority government. The health system was sicker than the people it was seeking to treat. We now have a one-state health system. Waiting lists are lower. In the education system, we are now introducing grade 12 into the high schools so that young Tasmanians can achieve a higher educational level.
All of these things have been occurring in the last four years under a majority state Liberal government working hand in glove with the coalition government in Canberra. And who could forget the dysfunction of the Greens-Labor minority government here in Canberra? Well, you can multiply that 100-fold and look at what happened in my home state of Tasmania.
The Liberal Party, both in Canberra and Tasmania, promised the Tasmanian people that, if they were to elect us, we would seek to reboot and revitalise the Tasmanian economy, and our policies were very clearly directed to that end. We put money into irrigation schemes to breathe new life and confidence into our regional communities. From the north-east to the north-west to the Central Highlands, we were absolutely committed to seeking to enhance our agricultural prospects with infrastructure that, in turn, would lead to jobs growth and export dollars, which would bring more money into the Tasmanian community.
We promised an extension of the runway at Hobart Airport to ensure that our Antarctic possibilities could be met. Before the extension, flights departing from Hobart to the Antarctic could take only 75 per cent payload because the runway was too short. Today, the planes can leave fully laden, enhancing Tasmania's reputation to the rest of the world as a hub for Antarctic endeavour, bringing overseas money into Hobart and Tasmania, and that of course translates into employment opportunities. We have upgraded the Midland Highway, and that is an ongoing process; for those of us who travel it on a regular basis, it is a nuisance from time to time. But the short-term pain is definitely worth the long-term gain in ensuring that we have safer roads which enhance our tourism image of a welcoming state to those who seek to use the roads to get around, and, of course, for the logistics of moving goods around our state.
We promised to have a look at the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme as it applies to our exports. Being an island state, we were absolutely mugged by Labor and the Greens' manic determination to force through shipping reforms which basically meant that getting a container across Bass Strait was going to cost as much as getting it from Port Phillip to anywhere else in the world. Basically as a result of the Labor-Greens amendments to coastal shipping, international shipping no longer swung by Tasmania, requiring this transshipping. Think of that short bit of water from the north of Tasmania to Victoria. It costs just as much to get a container across that bit of water as it does to the Middle East, to the United States or to the European Union. You can understand the impost that has on our export capability in Tasmania. And what does that translate to? Difficulty in the provision of jobs for the men and women that make or provide those goods that we seek to export to the rest of the world. So as a federal government we ensured that we had an enhanced Freight Equalisation Scheme to protect those Tasmanian jobs.
There is a sense of excitement within the state of Tasmania today. There is a sense that the dysfunction of some four years ago is now behind us. My fellow Tasmanians face a decision on 3 March as to whether they go back to that dysfunction of four years ago or whether they lift Tasmania to the next level. Keep in mind that, in the four years of the majority Liberal government, 10,500 new jobs have been created. In those four years, the state has turned from recession to having some of the best, if not the best, economic indicators anywhere in the country in relation to employment growth and in relation to small business confidence. Family businesses and small businesses are now confident in investing and employing more of their fellow Tasmanians. The education system now is catering for grade 12s and encouraging our young Tasmanians to further their education. In so doing, of course, they enhance their job prospects, their employability and their capacity to also contribute to the Tasmanian economy and, most importantly, be able to stay in Tasmania and have a future in the state of their birth.
With this excitement, Madam Deputy President, comes a list of candidates that you would not believe possible. Candidates know that in the Hare-Clark system it is difficult to win a seat in circumstances where you've already got a number of excellent sitting members. Nevertheless, we have had a suite of excellent candidates seeking to put up their hand to ensure that majority Liberal government is retained in Tasmania on 3 March. I go to the electorate of Lyons, for example—the big electorate that covers the majority of the state of Tasmania. Despite having three very well-established sitting members, we have the excellent new candidates of John Tucker and Jane Howlett. In the seat of Franklin we have Simon Duffy and Claire Chandler. In the seat of Bass, with three sitting members doing good work, we have a mayor and an alderman willing to put up their hand to enhance the excellent quality of the team that is already running. So there is a new air within the state of Tasmania. In the capital city there are currently five cranes operating, bearing witness to the economic transformation and the jobs that flow from that. These are examples that cannot be denied. On the other side, what we have is a Labor Party willing to do deals with the Australian Greens and form another minority government which would bring dysfunction and unemployment back to Tasmania.
I'm excited to be in lockstep with the Tasmanian Liberal government, developing policies and delivering for the people of Tasmania that have seen the transformation. When you think that there are another 10,000 people in employment, it means 10,000 more people are off welfare and fully engaged in the socioeconomic benefits that Tasmania has to offer. I wish Premier Hodgman and his team every success on 3 March. (Time expired)
Ultimate Fighting Championship
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:55): In the short time allotted to me, I'd like to make a contribution to talk about a fantastically brilliant event that happened on the weekend in Western Australia, and that is the Ultimate Fighting Championship—UFC—221. What a magnificent weekend. What a magnificent event for Western Australia. There were 12,500 people crammed into the Perth Arena. It was just as good as the Robbie Williams concert. The vibe was unbelievable. It started off at 7 am. That's when I was there at the arena, and there were thousands streaming in. It even shocked the UFC, because normally they wait for the main card to start and, in the Perth UFC 221, the main card started at 11 am. The place was nearly chock-a-block by 9 am. By all reports, 4,000 people flew in from interstate—not that us West Aussies, or the UFC fans, couldn't fill the Perth Arena but it was a total sellout.
The main event was the Aussie champion, Robbie Whittaker from New South Wales. Robbie, unfortunately, had a staph infection so he couldn't front up for UFC 221. Yoel Romero, the Cuban, took his place. He took on Luke Rockhold. What a magnificent battle that was. The crowd was on its toes all day. There was massive representation from Australian fighters.
Madam Deputy President, I know that you're as excited about the UFC 221 as I am, and I don't blame you. There were four champion Aussies who won, and I'll mention them later should I have the time.
I've got to take a step back in time. Four years ago, I had the ability to contact the UFC, because the previous government, for whatever reason, would not support the closed enclosure—
Senator Cash: You were going so well!
Senator Abetz: I'm sure you were!
Senator STERLE: No, I'm not going to get political. I'm not going to bag out Colin Barnett. He had his views and that was it. But us on the other side, us UFC and mixed martial arts fans, weren't going to sit down. I started the www.ufcforperthnow campaign and received thousands of signatures. I worked with fellow supporters at the pubs on the weekends. It was a trudge, but I put myself through it, going to many pubs in Perth and the suburbs, so I could to get the support of the UFC fight fans to get this magnificent sporting event to WA.
I won't get in trouble for this because every West Aussie knows how passionate I am about the UFC and getting it to Perth. Listen to this, Senator Cash, this might rock you. There was not one black T-shirt or tattoo left in the suburbs. They were all at the Perth Arena. And what a magnificent event we had. That's true: there was not one black T-shirt or tattoo left. They were all there, and all my supporters as well. Channel 9 says that the coverage went to about 14 million globally. For our great state of Western Australia—no matter who's in government—it brought in some $3.6 million on the sales just as a start.
I really have to thank Peter Closko. He is the UFC guru of Australia. Peter and I met four years ago. Peter, thank you so much, mate, for your undying effort, and your professionalism, to do whatever you could to get this magnificent event to WA. We proved that we're just as passionate as the Victorians. I was at the UFC event in Victoria. I paid my own way. I went there and watched Holly Holm knock out Ronda Rousey. There were 56,000 people. I reckon us West Aussies would have put 56,000 people into the Perth Arena should there have been enough space.
I have to say to those who are so anti UFC and MMA that the beauty of living in Australia is that you can be—us fight fans love it. One of the criticisms was the ratbags that might come to the UFC events—not that there's any ratbags at the Eagles games! I wouldn't suggest that for one minute! There were three people evicted. I saw one pour soul getting frogmarched out. He just took his medicine and left. There were a lot more people outside, who I was talking to, who were trying to find out if they could buy tickets. Unfortunately, there were none left. They had gone. In closing, I was told today that, sadly, there were more evictions at the Neil Diamond concert. (Time expired)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Taxation
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. This morning the ABC reported that one in five companies operating in Australia have not paid a single cent in corporate tax for the last three years. Can the minister confirm that, despite generating revenue of $1.84 billion over three years, the Prime Minister's former employer, Goldman Sachs, has paid no net corporate tax in that period?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:00): I thank Senator Watt for that question. No wonder the Labor Party are so shocking at managing the economy when they are in government, because they clearly don't understand that company tax, business tax, is imposed on profits, not revenue. Let me tell you, the consequences for investment, jobs, wages and the future prosperity of Australian families will be devastating. If Labor want to introduce a tax on revenue, they should say so. If Labor's policy is to introduce a tax on revenue, they should say so.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Senator CORMANN: This is of course—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator Hinch? Sorry; I didn't see you back there.
Senator Hinch: You can't hear a damn thing back here.
The PRESIDENT: It's only taken two minutes, and it's only Wednesday, so can we have some order in the chamber so our Senate colleagues down at the rear of it can hear the answer.
Senator CORMANN: The truth is that shifty, socialist Bill wants to rack up taxes. He wants to increase the tax burden on the economy, which of course would be bad for every working Australian because it would lead to—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Sterle on a point of order.
Senator Sterle: Mr President, a point of order under standing order 193: that is not tolerable; you have to refer to members in the other place by their proper title.
The PRESIDENT: I actually couldn't hear what the minister was saying. Minister, if there is something you wish to withdraw please do so. I did not actually hear it with the noise in the chamber—as Senator Hinch outlined.
Senator CORMANN: Clearly Senator Sterle knows who I'm talking about when I say 'shifty, socialist Bill'.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Cormann, to assist the chamber I'd ask you to withdraw the term reflecting on a member of the other chamber.
Senator Wong: On the point of order, Mr President—
The PRESIDENT: I've asked the minister.
Senator Wong: On the point of order: I wasn't aware that thinking a company that generated $1.84 billion in revenue should pay some tax was a socialist position.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, you know that is not a point of order.
Senator CORMANN: Senator Sterle requested that I refer to him by his proper title, so I'm happy, of course, to do this. The Leader of the Opposition wants to increase the tax burden on business, making it harder for businesses to be successful and profitable so that they can hire more Australians and pay them better wages and pay more tax—because more profitable businesses will pay more tax.
This is what Mr Shorten, as Assistant Treasurer, said when it came to company tax cuts. I'll just read it out to you:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
That was Bill Shorten on 23 August 2011.
Senator Jacinta Collins: Trickle-down isn't working, Mathias; you know that.
Senator CORMANN: We now have Senator Collins criticising what Mr Shorten said when he was Assistant Treasurer in the Gillard government. The Labor Party doesn't understand that if we want Australians to be as successful as possible we need the businesses that employ them to be as successful as possible. Nine out of 10 working Australians work for private sector businesses. Their future job security, their future career prospects and their future wage increases depend on the future profitability of those businesses, and do you know what? The future government revenue from business depends on the future profitability of those businesses, so we can continue to fund sustainably the public services of Australia— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:04): EnergyAustralia is the nation's leading energy retailer, with 1.7 million electricity and gas customers across eastern Australia. Can the minister confirm that EnergyAustralia has paid no net corporate tax for the decade to 2016?
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) (14:04): I don't talk about the individual tax affairs of individual businesses, but let me tell you this: every business in Australia—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator Cameron!
Senator CORMANN: Every business in Australia pays their tax on their profits. Bigger businesses right now have to pay 30 per cent tax on their profits, whereas businesses in the US have to pay 21 per cent; in the UK, 19 per cent, soon to be 17 per cent; in France, soon to be 25 per cent. The Australian Labor Party want to hold Australian business back. They don't want Australian businesses to have the best possible opportunity to succeed, because the Australian Labor Party don't understand that the future prosperity of Australians and the future job security of every Australian worker depend on the future success and profitability of Australian businesses.
Now, if the Labor Party is proposing to impose a tax on turnover in the future, if the Labor Party under the socialist agenda pursued by Bill Shorten— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:06): I know it's hard to stop the minister when he's on a socialist rant, but we'll try again. Despite posting a $71 million profit in 2014-15, News Corp has paid no net corporate tax in four years. Given that some of Australia's largest companies are not paying any corporate tax, why is the government forcing working- and middle-class Australians to pay an additional $300 a year in tax while pressing ahead with a $65 billion tax cut for big business?
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) (14:06): It is actually the Australian Labor Party that wants to increase the tax burden on hardworking Australians. You want to take $1 out of every $2 earned from any Australian earning more than $180,000 a year. You want to take permanently, on an ongoing basis, nearly $1 out of $2, out of their pocket. The Labor Party wants to increase the tax burden on the Australian economy by $165 billion. That will lead to less investment, to lower growth, to fewer jobs and to lower wages. The unemployment queues under the Labor Party will blow out, and no amount of misleading statements in the Senate will mislead the Australian people from the fact that, under Labor, the economy would be worse off and Australian workers would be worse off because there would be fewer jobs, more unemployment and lower wages.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Can I remind colleagues of the request from Senator Hinch that the senators down at the rear of the chamber might be able to hear the questions and the answers.
Welfare Reform
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:07): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Can the minister update the Senate on the Turnbull government's cashless debit card initiative?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:07): I thank Senator Brockman for the question. This week the cashless debit card bill was passed in the Senate, and I thank those senators who supported us and supported the passage of that important bill. The bill expands the trial sites to the Goldfields region in Western Australia and extends the existing two trial sites for another two years. The card has been trialled in Ceduna, in South Australia, since March 2016 and in the East Kimberley region, in Western Australia, since April 2016.
The trial was aimed at whether restricting the amount of cash in a community reduces the overall harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug misuse at the individual and community level. It applied to all people on working-age income support payments, excluding age pensioners, who were able to volunteer. Evaluation of these trials showed that the card had considerable positive impact in communities, including 48 per cent of drug takers using fewer drugs, 41 per cent of drinkers drinking less and 48 per cent of gamblers gambling less. And this evaluation found widespread spillover benefits from the card, including 40 per cent being able to better look after their children and 45 per cent being able to better save money. There were also reports of increased purchases of baby items, food, clothes, shoes, toys and other goods for children.
Following the success of the initial trials and extensive consultation, the Turnbull government committed to expand the cashless debit card trial to include one more site. This is another example of the Turnbull government delivering on its commitments.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a supplementary question.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:09): I thank the minister for her answer and note in passing the outstanding work of Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, in advocating on behalf of his local community. Minister, how does the cashless debit card work and how will it benefit those who use it?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:10): The cashless debit card looks and operates like a normal bank card; however, it does restrict the purchase of alcohol, gambling products and gift cards and cannot be used to withdraw cash. People on the card receive 20 per cent of their welfare payment in their usual bank account, and 80 per cent of their welfare goes into the debit card. For example, 100 per cent of lump-sum payments from Centrelink and family tax benefit also go into their cashless debit card. The card does not change the amount of money that people receive from Centrelink. It only changes the way in which people receive and spend their fortnightly payments. The card of course is not the answer to all of those communities' problems, but it does lead to some fundamental improvements in communities with high levels of welfare dependence and social harm.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, final supplementary question.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:11): Can the minister advise of support for the expansion of the cashless debit card, and are there any alternative policies?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:11): There's a large amount of community support for the card to be trialled in communities in the Goldfields and in the Hervey Bay area in Queensland. Just ask, as Senator Brockman has said, the member for O'Connor and, of course, the member for Hinkler about their communities and what their communities are telling them. The five shires of the Goldfields told the Prime Minister that they want to see the card, because they believe it will improve life in their communities. As the community in Hinkler has told their representative, over 75 per cent of that community want the card. Even the former Labor member for Hinkler, Brian Courtice, has written to voice his support for the card in the Hervey Bay area, and I'd like to quote what he has to say: 'Put politics aside and speak up for those who can't speak for themselves on this issue.' The cashless debit card in the electorate of Hinkler is worth a go to try and give children and young people a future, and those opposite should heed those words.
Deputy Prime Minister
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:12): My question is to Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Did the minister or any of his staff raise with the secretary or any other senior official in the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science the appointment of Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's former media adviser to a departmental role?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:12): Not to my knowledge.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:13): Did the minister or any of his staff raise with the secretary or any other senior officials in any other department the appointment of Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's former media adviser to a departmental role?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:13): Again, not to my knowledge.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: Mr President, that's the second occasion on which the minister is saying he doesn't know. We'd like him to take it on notice. Well, we think this matter goes to a matter of—
Senator Seselja: You don't get to direct him; you can do it in the supplementary.
Senator Wong: Well, I'm asking that and, if he refuses, that will be plain.
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Can I hear Senator Wong? Can I hear Senator Wong before I rule? Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: I'm requesting that the minister take it on notice.
The PRESIDENT: Okay. Senator Wong, that is not a point—Senator Cormann?
Senator Cormann: I just on the point of order make the point that the question was asked and the minister answered the question. The minister answered the question as he was able to answer it, so there's no point of order.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! I asked for order on my right. Senator Collins, please resume your seat. On my left: I asked for order on my right so I could hear Senator Wong. I'm going to ask you to return the courtesy to Senator Cormann. Senator Collins, I'm prepared to rule on this. Senator Wong did not raise a point order. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. There is an opportunity in this chamber to ask questions. The minister was relevant to the question. That is the limit of my authority. Senator Cameron, do you have a final supplementary question?
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:14): I certainly do. Can the minister guarantee to the Senate that no-one approached Geoscience Australia to secure a job for Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's former media adviser?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:14): Once again, I have no knowledge of those matters.
Mining
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:15): My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, today the ABC revealed that the Adani Group paid no tax on its Abbot Point coal terminal project for the three financial years until mid-2016. It earned almost $1 billion, and not one cent of that flowed back to the Australian people. To add insult to injury, while Adani pays zero dollars in tax, it's also polluting Australia's coastal waters and wetlands with coal laden stormwater and then refusing to pay a $12,000 fine. In short, it is a disgrace. Minister, can you explain how Adani got away with paying zero tax on $1 billion?
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) (14:15): I thank Senator Di Natale for that question. I make the same point to him as I made to Senator Watt, and that is that in Australia companies pay tax on their profits, not on their revenue. While I don't comment on the individual tax affairs of individual companies, the general point I would make is that the level of investment that is taking place in the context of opening up the Galilee Basin for increased coal exports of Australia of course provides many benefits to Australia. It generates many jobs, and these jobs, of course, are paid for by businesses investing in Australia. Those employees working for businesses being profitable and successful in Australia themselves pay taxes, and many small and medium sized businesses in Australia provide services to larger businesses in Australia that are making investments in Australia.
If you are suggesting that businesses in Australia should pay tax on their turnover then you should say so clearly—or are you suggesting that any Australian company that makes a loss should pay tax? Allowing losses to be offset against future profits is a standard feature of most income tax systems. Restrictions on the carry-forward of losses used to exist in Australia. However, they were removed by the Labor government back in 1990, and that was a good decision. If the opposition is suggesting that a higher company tax rate will make us more competitive in the future, and if the Greens and the Labor Party think that it will boost investment, jobs, wages and growth in the future, then they should put forward, as a concrete policy proposal, the proposition that tax should be imposed on revenue rather than on profits. I guess that the Greens and the Labor Party may be suggesting that Australian companies like the ones that have been mentioned should pay tax before they pay their employees. That, of course, is the implication of what Senator Di Natale is asking there.
The PRESIDENT: A supplementary question, Senator Di Natale.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:17): Minister, we've also heard that the environment department found that Adani may have been negligent because it did not disclose its CEO's history of causing serious environmental harm in Zambia. Minister, people right across Australia—and I have to say there are a lot of them in Batman, lots and lots of them—don't want that mine to go ahead. There are a lot of them. The evidence is now overwhelming. Minister, why shouldn't we overturn approval for this dirty, jobs-destroying coalmine?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Stop the clock. Senator Di Natale, please resume your seat. Senators around the chamber—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald on a point of order.
Senator Ian Macdonald: I raise a point of order. The Democrats have been known for doing this for a long time, but it is getting worse. They take—sorry, the Greens.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Well, Andrew Bartlett's party.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Di Natale, I'm hearing Senator Macdonald on a point of order.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! It's only Wednesday.
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, the Greens political party are now making a habit, particularly on broadcast day, of having a one-minute exposure of their ridiculous policies, and I do ask you to look into the question of asking questions. The two questions that Senator Di Natale has asked so far could have been asked right at the beginning of the thing, rather than having a one-minute preamble about the Greens political party's ridiculous policies.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I understand that flexibility has always been given to senators to preface their questions. There was a question at the conclusion of the preface. Senator Di Natale, I'm going to ask you to ask the second half of the question again, because I could not hear it.
Senator Di Natale: Could I take a point of order on that: could you ask the senator from the United Australia Party for a translation of what just transpired here?
The PRESIDENT: That's not a point of order, Senator Di Natale. Can you ask the second part of your question again, because I got as far as the word 'Batman'?
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, please.
Senator Di Natale: Should I take it from the top?
The PRESIDENT: No. I need to take note for subsequent points of order. I got as far as that. Please continue the second part of your question.
Senator DI NATALE: I was reminding the minister of the many thousands of people in the seat of Batman, along with people right across Australia, who don't want the Adani coalmine to go ahead. Now that we have overwhelming evidence—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Ask a question!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald!
Senator DI NATALE: of the overt corruption and environmental vandalism that the Adani company is responsible for—
The PRESIDENT: Return to the question, Senator Di Natale!
Senator DI NATALE: why won't the minister now overturn—
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Colleagues on my right! There was so much noise in the chamber that I could not hear Senator Di Natale. I gave you some liberty, Senator Di Natale. You were taking slight advantage of it. Please return to the last phrase of your question, which commenced 'why'.
Senator DI NATALE: Sure. Batman, Batman, Batman—
The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Di Natale! I will move on if you do not return to your question.
Senator DI NATALE: Okay. Why won't the minister overturn this mine, given what we know about Adani?
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) (14:21): Firstly, the issues—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Why would anyone vote for you in Batman!
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Macdonald!
Senator CORMANN: that Senator Di Natale raises in relation to Zambia were assessed and considered by the department of the environment, and the department of the environment and the minister are satisfied that, with the strict environmental conditions that have been imposed, this project should proceed. It's a high-quality project and a great example of our capacity in Australia to balance environmental protection with important economic development, and job creation where that can be done. What I would also say is that opening up the Galilee Basin to boost the production and export of coal—better coal out of Australia than is available in other parts of the world, from an environmental point of view—is manifestly in the interests of the people of Queensland and the people of Australia. We'll continue to support this very important project.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:22): Minister, you've come to the nub of my next question, which is: this isn't about Adani as much as it is about the huge pollution that will result from a new coalmine in the Galilee Basin—something that the Labor Party refuses to acknowledge. Can you please tell the Australian community, especially the people of Batman, how our commitments under the Paris climate agreement are compatible with your plans and the Labor Party's plans to keep expanding our coal industry and build new coalmines?
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): Australia has a proud record of meeting its international emissions reduction targets. We met and, indeed, exceeded our emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol. We are committed, and we believe we will equally meet our emissions reduction targets that were agreed in Paris. In fact, exporting more high-quality Australian coal and displacing dirtier coal from other sources will actually help to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. I just remind Senator Di Natale that our second biggest export earner nationally is the sale and export of coal. The Australian government absolutely remains committed to continuing to support the very important coal production and export sector in Australia, particularly when it can supply— (Time expired)
Indigenous Affairs
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Senator Fifield. Can the minister update the Senate on how the portfolio of the arts is supporting the creation of jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who seek to maintain connections to their culture?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:24): Thank you, Senator Smith. I think all colleagues would recognise that Indigenous arts and languages support the wellbeing of Indigenous people, make a contribution to our national economy and promote Australia to international audiences, which is why we continue to invest in the Indigenous Visual Arts Industry Support and the Indigenous Languages and Arts programs.
At the last election we committed to an additional investment to support the development and use of innovative digital solutions to record and teach Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages. Through these programs, we support the operation of 22 Indigenous language centres delivering activities that assist in the revival and maintenance of Indigenous languages, and more than 80 remote Indigenous art centres that are at the heart of our world-renowned Indigenous visual arts movement.
The Indigenous Visual Arts Industry Support program supports a professional, strong and ethical Indigenous visual arts industry, with strong participation by, and employment for, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous art centres provide the infrastructure and relationships that allow artists to create new art, generate income, develop professional skills and connect to the commercial art market. The government has also significantly removed red tape for funding recipients in recent years, and organisations funded by the Indigenous Visual Arts Industry Support program provide professional opportunities for more than 8,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and around 350 Indigenous arts workers. This is an important part of the arts portfolio, and I'm sure all colleagues would agree that this is a good, important and appropriate way for the Commonwealth to support it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:26): Can the minister further update the Senate on the government's support for Indigenous languages?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:26): The Indigenous Languages and Arts program invests in projects to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to express, preserve and maintain their cultures through languages and arts. The government has increased the focus on developing and using innovative digital solutions to record and teach Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, assisting communities to meet their ambitions for language revival.
A major step is the convening of the first National Indigenous Languages Convention on the Gold Coast later this month. The convention will highlight the community-led initiatives and support the use of technology to address the erosion of Australia's estimated 250 original Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and more than 600 dialects. Colleagues may be interested to know that today less than half of these are spoken, and many are in danger of being lost.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:27): Can the minister further elaborate on the connection between the National Indigenous Languages Convention and jobs for Indigenous Australians?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:27): The forum will showcase firsthand how digital technologies are being used to revive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages. Digital technologies do hold the potential for Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to record, revive, maintain, celebrate and share languages today and with future generations. The forum is also intended to encourage partnerships between Indigenous communities, government and technology industry leaders to explore the potential of innovation and digital technology. These investments are helping to open up rewarding career pathways for Indigenous language workers and Indigenous linguists. The government recognises the central role that language plays in culture, and is committed to ensuring that the new possibilities offered by digital technologies can be harnessed to revive, maintain and celebrate Indigenous languages. I should obviously also acknowledge Senator Scullion's deep commitment in this area.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:28): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Cormann. It relates to the CPTPP. On 23 January 2018, 11 countries, including Australia, reached agreement on the final Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Studies based on favourable assumptions showed that the original TPP 12 would result in hardly any economic growth to Australia's GDP after 15 years. Noting there will be enabling legislation for the CPTPP, can the government confirm whether they will release the full cost-benefit analysis of the CPTPP so that the parliament and the public can share the same level of confidence as the government about the impact of the agreement? Will the government also initiate any independent cost-benefit analysis on the deal? Given the purported significance of this deal, why would the government fail to do both of those things?
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) (14:29): I thank Senator Patrick for that question. Firstly I reject the assertions made in relation to the economic impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was a great success for both the Prime Minister and the trade minister, Steven Ciobo, who convinced others to proceed with this agreement with the remaining 11 countries, is part of our ambitious free trade agenda, which is all about helping Australian businesses be more successful and export more Australian products and services in key markets around the world. Guess what? Selling more products and services to other markets around the world helps make businesses more successful, helps them grow, and helps them hire more Australians and pay better wages.
The indicative modelling of the highly regarded Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the TPP-11 would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and boost exports by four per cent, which means more than $15 billion in additional income and more than $30 billion in additional exports. CPTPP countries are significant trading partners for Australia. The 10 other countries involved account for nearly one-quarter, or 23.6 per cent, of Australia's exports of goods and services, which was worth nearly $88 billion last financial year. That's why our government remained committed to this agreement, even when the US decided to walk away. As the CEO of the National Farmers' Federation, Tony Mahar, stated:
The CPTPP is a regional free trade agreement of unprecedented scope and ambition. It has great potential to drive job-creating growth across the Australian economy.
The Minerals Council of Australia said:
The regional trade agreement between 11 Asia-Pacific economies will boost Australian exports, contribute to growth, jobs and investment, and help ease cost of living pressures on Australian consumers.
And there is much more.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a supplementary question.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:32): Even though Australia's plain packaging legislation for tobacco products was found under challenge to be constitutionally valid by our highest court, millions of dollars of taxpayer money was spent defending litigation because of ISDS provisions. Does the minister agree that ISDS poses a significant risk to Australia's legal sovereignty, as corporations have the potential to challenge rights to regulate in the public interest?
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) (14:32): No, I do not agree with that assertion. ISDS provisions are about protecting Australian companies in economies that don't have the same transparency and predictability as ours. They're about protecting Australian assets from being stolen and ensuring Australian businesses are given a fair go relative to the local overseas companies. We are aware of at least four companies that have used ISDS provisions to pursue their interests in overseas markets with legal systems less robust than ours. The coalition has also ensured the ISDS provisions it has negotiated include modern safeguards that appropriately balance the rights of investors with the rights of governments to regulate in the national interest.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: I would also point out, as Senator Macdonald just reminded me, that the cost benefit and all of the public interest benefits of this agreement will be reviewed and inquired into by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which will no doubt also take on board the words of Business Council of Australia President Grant King:
This is a win for Australian workers and businesses.
The Winemakers' Federation of Australia stated— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:33): While the ISDS mechanisms in the CPTPP contain safeguards to protect Australia's interest to regulate in the public interest, as you mentioned, the only clear exclusion of public interest regulation in the CPTPP is that governments can choose to exclude tobacco regulation. Can the minister please confirm whether this is the only exclusion or whether there are other exclusions relating to, for example, public education or social services?
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) (14:34): The full text of the TPP-11 agreement will be available on the day of signing, 8 March, and will contain detail relevant to the senator's question. As I said in my previous answer, the coalition ensured the ISDS provisions it has negotiated include modern safeguards that appropriately balance the rights of investors with the rights of governments to regulate in the national interest. I also refer Senator Patrick to the comments of the Winemakers Federation of Australia, which stated:
… overwhelmingly the agreement is a significant development for Australian wine exporters who will see trade tariffs drawn down or, in the case of Canada, removed immediately upon the agreement's ratification.
It is manifestly in Australia's national interest for Australia to be involved in this agreement, and the parliament will have proper opportunity to review the agreement before being asked to vote on it—in particular, of course, as Senator Macdonald kindly reminded me, through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Tasmania: Economy
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:35): My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the minister advise the Senate of the progress made on the coalition's election promises to help revitalise the Tasmanian economy for the benefit of my fellow Tasmanians?
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) (14:35): I thank Senator Abetz, the leader of the Liberal Senate team in Tasmania, for that question. At the end of the Labor-Green minority government, both here in Canberra and in Hobart for that matter, Tasmania was in an economic recession, unable to pay for essential services, including schools and hospitals. Of course, one of the culprits is sitting over there. However, through the hard work of our government, working closely with the highly effective Hodgman Liberal government in Tasmania, things are starting to turn around, and this is not the time to change direction. May I congratulate the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, a great bunch, for their hard work in service to Tasmania. I hope we will continue to work together—of course, we will continue to work together—to deliver for Tasmanians.
Thanks to the policies of our government in Canberra and the Liberal government in Hobart, the Tasmanian economy has surged ahead, with the unemployment rate falling from 8.1 per cent when Bill Shorten was employment minister to 6.1 per cent today. This means that there are now more than 16,700 additional Tasmanians in work, providing them, their families and the Tasmanian community at large with more opportunities to get ahead. Instead of congratulating the Hodgman government, here is the Labor Party—negativity, negativity, negativity. Business conditions are better in Tasmania today than in any other state—plus 24 index points.
But it is not just Tasmania that is benefiting from the coalition government's policies to encourage jobs and growth. Last year, of course, as Senator Cash was telling us again yesterday, more than 400,000 jobs were created across Australia, with three-quarters of those being full-time jobs. Nationally, the business conditions index jumped by six points to a strong plus 19 index points, well above the long-term average of plus five index points. Job advertisements in Australia increased 6.2 per cent in January to end up 13.8 per cent higher over the past year. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz, a supplementary question.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:37): I thank the minister for that impressive list of achievements. I further ask: can the minister outline the specific policies that have brought about this amazing turnaround in Tasmania's and in fact the nation's fortunes?
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) (14:37): I thank Senator Abetz for this important supplementary. This amazing turnaround has been a team effort. Premier Hodgman and his state Liberal government have balanced the Tasmanian state budget and returned it to surplus for the first time in a decade and four years ahead of schedule. That draws a strong contrast with the reckless spending of Tasmanian Labor and the Greens, which all but bankrupted the Tasmanian state, with nothing to show for it.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: Again, one of the culprits is sitting over there, and he's still yelling and screaming. As a federal government, we are committed to making it easier for Tasmanian businesses, and indeed all businesses, to employ more people and pay them better, higher wages. Indeed, that is why we have cut company tax for small- and medium-sized businesses and why we're committed to extending those cuts to all Australian businesses, including some of the nation's largest employers.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:38): I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: is there anything that stands in the way of Tasmania being able to raise itself to the next level?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator Polley!
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Carr, Senator Wong is on her feet on a point of order.
Senator Wong: Whilst I'm enjoying Senator Cormann channelling Tasmania, I question the extent to which that final supplementary is in order.
The PRESIDENT: It would be easier for me to ascertain that if I could have heard the question, Senator Wong. I couldn't hear the question.
Senator Wong: Fair enough.
The PRESIDENT: I was constantly calling the chamber to order. Senator Abetz, ask it again so I may rule on the point of order.
Senator ABETZ: Thank you, Mr President. I'm delighted to ask the question again. It is as follows: is there anything that stands in the way of Tasmania being able to raise itself to the next level, given the excellent policies that have already been implemented?
Senator Wong: That's not what you asked, Eric!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I could not hear the first question.
Senator Wong: You can check the Hansard.
Senator Cormann: On a point of order, these are matters that I've spoken about extensively in my ministerial capacity and, as such, Senator Abetz is quite entitled to ask me about my assessment of the risks to the great state of Tasmania.
The PRESIDENT: Senator of Wong, on the point of order raised by Senator Cormann.
Senator Wong: Mr President, I'm happy for you to look at the Hansard. With respect to my friend Senator Abetz, I think he might have added somewhat to the question the second time around—
Senator Abetz: I did!
Senator Wong: which he concedes. I'm happy for you to do that, Mr President. I would say that if the Leader of the Government in the Senate is asserting that because a minister spoke about anything ever we can ask a question without reference to that statement as to public affairs, I would have thought that's a new proposition. I ask you to consider that. It is the case that if ministers make public statements we can ask them about it, but generally the practice in the chamber has been some reference to that statement.
The PRESIDENT: As I found out last week, Hansard can sometimes hear better than I can. I will review it when it comes through. Senator Cormann, addressing the question asked by Senator Abetz.
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) (14:41): Thank you very much, Mr President. We want to continue to work with the Hodgman government on projects like the $400 million over 10 years for the Midland Highway; the $38 million towards the Hobart International Airport runway extension; the massive education infrastructure commitment of $150 million to relocate and expand the University of Tasmania; and the city deal with Launceston.
Of course, the risk is that if there were to be a return of a bad Labor-Green government in Tasmania, all of this would be so much more difficult. Tasmania would again be looking at the sort of disastrous economic developments—
Senator Carol Brown interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown!
Senator CORMANN: that we experienced under the previous Labor-Green government.
Senator Carol Brown interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown!
Senator CORMANN: Our strong advice to the people of Tasmania is that, if you are genuinely interested in the best possible opportunity for Tasmanian families to get ahead, vote for the Hodgman government so that we can continue to work with them in the best interests of the people of Tasmania.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Can I please ask senators that when they are called to order they pause for at least a few seconds before they continue interjecting. We do need to maintain some semblance of decorum so colleagues may hear, including me, so that points of order can be raised.
Energy
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (14:42): My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Despite the hoo-ha about the personal affairs of the Deputy Prime Minister, based on the silly idea that politicians are expected to be moral leaders, the Australian public and the Liberal Democrats are more concerned about crippling electricity prices. Subsidies are to blame. These include subsidies for homeowners to put solar panels on their roof, which makes electricity more expensive for those who don't own their own home because they are the ones funding the subsidy, and the problem gets worse. Is the minister aware that the likely cost to consumers for rooftop solar subsidies this year will amount to about $1.2 billion, up from almost $500 million in 2017?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:43): I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for his question. In relation to the preamble in which Senator Leyonhjelm acknowledged the concerns of the Australian people being focused in relation to issues such as how their electricity prices can be reduced and where jobs can be created, I concur entirely, Senator Leyonhjelm, that they are the priorities the Australian people rightly expect us all to focus on. They are the priorities the Turnbull government is resolutely focused upon.
In relation to installation of solar panels, Senator Leyonhjelm is correct in that Australia has one of the largest, if not the largest, installation rates of solar panels in the world, with one in five Australian households now having solar panels on their rooftops—more than 2½ million Australian households. As senators would be well aware, in our time in office the coalition did make changes to the Renewable Energy Target, and in doing so sought to ensure that the 2020 target in place was better aligned to what was achievable, and so had a lesser impact in terms of household costs. But we are determined to go further in terms of household costs. As I've outlined to the Senate on a number of occasions now, our pursuit of lower prices is focused on comprehensive action in terms of reform of policies relating to emissions reduction and on ensuring the reliability so that they work in a better way in future to: drive towards the lowest price point aligned with our work; rein in the cost of networks around gaming of the system; get more gas into the domestic market; get a better deal via retailers; and, ultimately, deliver the National Energy Guarantee, which is estimated to have a reduction in average household power bills of around $400 per annum compared to what they would otherwise be.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Leyonhjelm, a supplementary question.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (14:45): Is the minister aware that he could utilise the review mechanism inserted into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 by the Gillard government to reduce the price of small-scale technology certificates and, therefore, lessen the cost impact of subsidies on consumer electricity bills?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:45): In fact, the small-scale-technology certificates that operate as a component of the renewable energy target under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme are traded under market conditions. There is a cap in relation to what the maximum price can be, some $40, but they do trade below that frequently, and, indeed, have traded in a range, I understand, between $30 and $40 for those certificates. The government is determined to make sure that we do transition the way in which support is delivered, and that we do transition to the National Energy Guarantee-type model, which will ensure that distortionary impacts are removed and that we have a free and fair application of generation sources into the energy market, regardless of their type, where they simply compete on the basis of price and reliability, and where we meet our international obligations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Leyonhjelm, a final supplementary question.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (14:47): Can the minister provide justification for not reducing the maximum cost of solar subsidies when the cost of solar panels has dramatically fallen in the last few years?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:47): In fact, there is a natural phase down that operates within the Renewable Energy Target Scheme legislation, and, in particular, in relation to the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. That scheme has an end date of 2030. The phase down means that each year the number of certificates provided to a solar panel installation declines by one year's worth of certificates as 2030 approaches. To spell that out a little, that means that in 2016 an eligible solar panel installation would receive 15 years worth of certificates, but last year that fell to 14 years worth of certificates, and this year it would be only 13 years worth of certificates and so forth. There is in fact a phase down that adjusts the way in which the solar industry is supported under that scheme. Of course, that would work commensurate with that phase down occurring and the government pursuing a National Energy Guarantee that doesn't play favourites but does guarantee reliability and affordability.
Deputy Prime Minister
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:48): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Yesterday Deputy Prime Minister Joyce confirmed that his former media adviser was subsequently employed in the offices of Minister Canavan and National whip Damian Drum. Was the staffer paid at an above-the-band salary at any point during her employment with the government?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:48): My consistent advice is no.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:48): Yesterday the minister refused to tell the Senate who exercised the Prime Minister's authority under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act to appoint Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's former media adviser to the offices of Minister Canavan and Nationals whip Damian Drum. Given the minister has had 24 hours to check, under what instrument was the Prime Minister's authority delegated, and to whom was 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) (14:49): I reject the premise of the question. I clearly pointed out yesterday—and I'll point out again—the Prime Minister's office has an administrative role. For decisions in relation to the National Party's allocation of personal staff—as part of our coalition agreement—and the Prime Minister fulfils his function in an administrative fashion, as I have previously indicated.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:49): I do have a final supplementary question. Given the significant attention that the appointments have received, can the minister assure the Senate that all requirements under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act and the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards were complied with?
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) (14:50): Yes.
Skilling Australians Fund
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister inform the Senate of the extent of interest by some states in the Skilling Australians Fund?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:50): I thank Senator Fawcett for his question and his interest in the Skilling Australians Fund, which is indeed structured in a way to create greater opportunities for Australians, particularly young Australians, to secure training opportunities for their future. It's about ensuring that we provide training in areas of economic growth: priority areas such as hospitality, tourism, health, manufacturing, building and construction, agriculture and digital technologies. All together it's around a $1½ billion commitment from the federal government to work with the states and territories on creating more opportunities by re-engineering the partnership in skilling in vocational and educational training between the Commonwealth and the states and territories so that we get improved outcomes, particularly in relation to apprenticeships.
I'm pleased to say that already there has been significant interest from states. In particular, last week we saw the Hodgman Liberal government promise that, if re-elected, they would help address the increasing demand for skilled workers across a number of sectors by investing some $7 million to establish a trades and water centre of excellence. I know that the Hodgman government has achieved great results in lifting the number of apprentices in training in Tasmania since they came to office. Through commitments like this and their commitment to working with us in relation to the Skilling Australians Fund, we would see even more opportunity for Tasmanians.
Equally, Senator Fawcett, in our home state of South Australia the Marshall Liberal opposition committed that, if elected, they would invest $100 million to partner with the Skilling Australians Fund to create 20,000 new places in vocational education and training, creating 20,000 new opportunities for young South Australians to secure apprenticeships and traineeships in areas of economic growth, creating job opportunities for them into the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:52): Could the minister provide some additional information as to how the Skilling Australians Fund could benefit South Australia if that investment were made?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:52): Indeed, as I just mentioned, a Marshall Liberal government has committed to providing $100 million to secure matching funding under the Skilling Australians Fund, creating more than 20,000 new places in the vocational educational system. They will provide, indeed, some 20,800 specific estimates of places in new apprenticeships and new traineeships.
And the response from employers is positive. Master Builders Association of SA stated it was great to see Steven Marshall and John Gardner backing apprenticeships and non-government training providers. Addressing the current skills shortage is a top priority for the building and construction industry. Of course, it comes on top of other commitments that they have made that would feed into our Skilling Australians Fund to deliver a new technical college in Adelaide's north-western suburbs, with a focus on encouraging students to work in the defence industry sector—a critical skills opportunity that I know, Senator Fawcett, you appreciate, where the Turnbull government is delivering record levels of investment and growth.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:53): The minister would be aware that I initiated an inquiry into TAFE in South Australia due to concerns around CASA withdrawing the qualifications of people who had trained there. Is the minister able to explain to the Senate why an inquiry into the failings of TAFE of South Australia and the South Australian government ended up being held in Sydney?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:54): Thank you, Senator Fawcett, for that question. Indeed, the only explanation for why it is that a properly constituted Senate inquiry looking into the failings of the Weatherill Labor government in South Australia and the management of the TAFE system there—an inquiry supported by the Greens and the crossbench in its establishment—would hold its only hearing in Sydney is that those opposite wanted to cover up the failings of the Weatherill Labor government. TAFE SA has been in a state of ongoing mess, debacle and embarrassment, with around 800 students impacted by compliance issues in relation to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and many more impacted by compliance issues by the—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron on a point of order.
Senator Cameron: We should understand exactly what happened. Senator Reynolds agreed to both the time and the place, and the evidence is that it is a disaster for the Liberals.
The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. I remind ministers not to reflect on the motives of others in the chamber.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Can I continue, Senator Wong! The motives of other senators should not be reflected upon in questions or answers, particularly assigning a motive to another senator's actions. Senator Birmingham.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Those opposite were clearly out to help the Weatherill Labor government in covering their tracks. Even the education union—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: Do I need to say anything? I will take the point of order. He is flouting the ruling of the President. How about that?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I think that, in my time in this chamber, suggesting a member of a party is helping out a member of another party has never been ruled to be reflecting on the motives of another senator. Senator Birmingham.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: They are so sensitive about the failings of the Weatherill Labor government in SA, which can't keep the lights on and has driven jobs away, and their TAFE sector has been an absolute debacle and embarrassment.
Deputy Prime Minister
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:56): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Yesterday, when asked about reports the Prime Minister has been ringing National Party members of parliament and senators to gauge support for Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, the minister said:
That story is absolutely incorrect.
Does the minister stand by that statement?
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) (14:56): Yes.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:56): In a story entitled 'Coalition crisis as Barnaby Joyce loses Nationals MPs' support', The Australian states:
Senate leader Mathias Cormann was left hanging by the Prime Minister's Office after telling the Senate that reports that Mr Turnbull had called Nationals MPs were untrue.
Does the minister agree he was 'left hanging' by the Prime Minister's office?
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) (14:57): No.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:57): Has the Prime Minister or his office been ringing National Party members of parliament and senators to gauge support for Deputy Prime Minister Joyce? If so, has the Prime Minister also canvassed alternative acting arrangements while he 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) (14:57): No, and not applicable.
Women in Science
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's answer yesterday about providing opportunities for women in STEM. Can the minister update the Senate about how the Turnbull government is encouraging young women and girls into science?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (14:58): I thank Senator Hume for her question. It is a fact that women and girls face real challenges in the science sector. This is reflected in the data. For example, 16 per cent of university and VET graduates in STEM are women. Much of this gender imbalance unfortunately starts at school and continues through to tertiary studies. Many young girls struggle to see themselves in a science based career. An interesting fact is this: when asked to draw a scientist, two-thirds of children aged 9-11 draw a man.
This needs to change. We need to ensure we have opportunities and not obstacles. We need to ensure that the voices and stories of Australia's absolutely fantastic female scientists are heard and seen by the next generation. Many of us attended the Science meets Parliament 19th annual dinner last night in the Great Hall. I think we can all agree that the female scientists there, without a doubt, represented the best and the brightest in Australia.
As the cabinet minister responsible for science, I am making it a priority to tackle the issue of under-representation of women and girls in science education and careers. That's why yesterday I announced the expansion of the Superstars of STEM program. We are going to double the number of those in the program from 30 to 60, and we have guaranteed funding for the next four years. But there are other programs that the government has backed to get more women and girls into STEM. The SAGE program, the Science in Australia Gender Equity project, is exceeding expectations because it has the support of the sector to ensure that efforts are being made to get more women and girls into STEM.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a supplementary question.
Senator HUME (Victoria) (15:00): I thank the minister for her answer. I did indeed attend the Science meets Parliament dinner last night, and it was awe-inspiring to meet so many of Australia's best and brightest. Can the minister please outline the importance of promoting the role of science in the Australian community?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (15:00): The government believes that science and innovation are essential to Australia's future. From basic research through to applied research, science impacts everybody in Australia, and it is incredibly important that we communicate this to the public. The public need to understand the actual everyday impact that science has on them. From fuelling our economy by creating new businesses and new jobs to ensuring that we're healthy and have the very best quality of life, science is essential to our future.
The government, of course, recognises this. That's why last year we prioritised science as part of Science meets Parliament, when we launched the Turnbull government's National Science Statement. It's important that we continually find ways to promote the work of scientists and innovators. We need to understand the positive impacts that they've had in the past, that they have today and that they will continue to have in the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Senator HUME (Victoria) (15:01): Can the minister please expand on how the government's commitment to science is creating jobs and opportunities for Australians?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (15:01): We've entered a period of unparalleled rapid economic growth. Science is going to drive business growth. It's going to drive more investment and, of course, more job opportunities. It's estimated that, by 2030, Australian workers will spend 77 per cent more time using science and mathematics skills, so we're ensuring as a government that Australians, but in particular women and girls, will be equipped with these skills to gain more and better-paid jobs, and our science initiatives are already supporting Australian jobs.
One of my first announcements was a $60 million investment in our Great Barrier Reef. We are doing this to ensure the preservation of the reef because this will secure the 64,000 jobs that are relied on by the reef but also the $6.4 billion that the reef brings to our economy. We've also helped launch TAIPAN, a purpose-built instrument for the UK Schmidt Telescope—again, a $6.4 million investment in research infrastructure. (Time expired)
Senator Cormann: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:03): by leave—I move:
That a motion relating to the routine of business for today and the consideration of disallowance motions may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Question agreed to.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:03): I thank the Senate. I move:
That—
(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, for today, be called on, if not already reached, immediately after Senator Molan's first speech and have precedence over all other business until determined;
(b) if consideration of the motions is not concluded at 7.10 pm, the questions on the unresolved motions shall then be put; and
(c) business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 proposing the disallowance of the Basin Plan Amendment (SDL Adjustments) Instrument 2017, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young for today, be postponed till 8 May 2018.
Senator Hanson-Young: Mr President, I'd just like to request that sections (a) and (b) be voted on separately to (c).
The PRESIDENT: That will be done. You'd like (c) separate to (a) and (b); is that correct? I will put the motion moved by the minister, paragraphs (a) and (b).
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: I will now put paragraph (c) of that motion.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Disabled Prisoners
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:05): Yesterday Senator Steele-John asked me a question in relation to disabled prisoners. The matters raised by Human Rights Watch relate to people with disability within the prison system in Queensland. We encourage the Queensland government to look seriously at these issues; however, we acknowledge that the issue of people with disability in the justice system is a complex one for all governments, which requires constant collaboration between the National Disability Insurance Agency and state and territory justice and housing systems, with leadership and expertise from the providers of these supports. The National Disability Insurance Agency will continue working with the jurisdictions on the identified areas of action, noting also that the justice interface is one of the priority areas of the senior officials working group.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme planning for people with an offending history is complex and requires consideration of how all services available, including mainstream services, support the person's life goals and reduce the risk of reoffending or breaching order conditions. Concerns have been raised regarding the extent to which the National Disability Insurance Scheme planning practices are inclusive of critical information on a person's current involvement with the justice system and the subsequent balancing of a person's goals and aspirations with forensic needs, order imposed constraints and community safety. Formal arrangements are required to ensure a person's rights are upheld to share essential information for the development of an appropriate NDIS plan. This should include details on mainstream supports in place to reduce the risk of reoffending and support compliance with an order. In addition, the National Disability Insurance Agency is currently developing a tailored pathway for participants with complex needs, and state and territory senior officials have been provided opportunities to attend tailored pathway workshops scheduled through March 2018. We welcome the contributions of all governments and the sector to this goal.
Infrastructure
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:07): During question time yesterday, in response to a question from Senator Brown, I agreed to seek further information on the government's annual infrastructure investment. Part of the question was:
Can the minister confirm that, under the Liberal-National government, annual infrastructure investment in Australia has plunged by 17 per cent since 2013?
The truth is that, in the last year of the former Labor government, only $4.5 billion was spent on infrastructure grants, loans and equity. In every year since, more funding has been invested by the coalition government, including almost $9 billion in 2017-18. I'm also pleased to advise the Senate that we will be delivering over $75 billion between 2017-18 and 2026-27 as part of our record investment in infrastructure across Australia to improve long-term productivity, increase and spread Australia's economic growth, and support the employment of local workers.
Indigenous Affairs
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:08): During question time on Thursday, 8 February, I agreed to seek advice about deliverables under the Implementation Plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023 in response to a question from Senator Dodson. My advice from the minister is that, as of 8 February, 23 deliverables are complete and all remaining deliverables are being actively progressed to meet the 2018 milestones. I also inform the Senate that Scotty James just won a bronze in the snowboard half-pipe.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Where answers are longer than a couple of paragraphs, you should seek leave to have them included in the Hansard, and I did remind ministers of the same issue last week.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Taxation
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Watt today relating to company tax cuts.
Yet again here in question time today we have seen senior members of the Turnbull government take the side of big business over working- and middle-class Australians. We've seen this time and time again from this government, proving that it is on the side of big business rather than the average Australian. They've done it on penalty rates, by failing to step in and failing to back Labor amendments which would have restored penalty rates to the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who depend upon penalty rates to pay their bills and put food on the table. We've seen this government do absolutely nothing about the stagnant wages that we keep seeing across most industries in Australia over its entire term of government, and we see this government do nothing whatsoever to help the hundreds of thousands of Australians, particularly in regional Queensland, who are suffering from the burst of labour hire, insecure work and casualisation. Time after time we bring examples of these kinds of things into this chamber and ask the government to do something about it, and time after time we see this government take the side of big business against working- and middle-class Australians. Now they're doing it again when it comes to company tax cuts. On top of ignoring the interests of working- and middle-class Australians around penalty rates, stagnant wages and casualisation—in addition to all of that—we see this government roll up and want to give a massive $65 billion tax cut to its friends in big business.
It's funny that the government should want to do this, because at the very same time they're always out there complaining about the amount of national debt, the deficit and how we've got to take tough action to rein these things in. So you would wonder how it is that the government can come up with the money to pay for a $65 billion tax cut to big business. Well, the way they're doing it is by yet again hitting working Australians, the people who are losing penalty rates, whose wages are stagnant and who are suffering from insecure work. This government is right now in the process of increasing taxes on working Australians by $300 per year, through increases to the Medicare levy and a range of other measures. It's also hitting the average Australian who has aspirations for their kids by increasing the cost of universities and cutting funding to universities to reduce the quality of education that young Australians receive. Even if you're not going to university, they're coming after you as well by cutting funding for apprenticeships and training. So on every front we see this government out there coming after working- and middle-class Australians, ripping money out of their pockets and out of the schools and hospitals that they depend on, to shovel it to its friends in big business with a $65 billion tax cut. This tax cut is bad for households, it's bad for the economy and it's bad in particular for regional Australia.
The National Party representatives we have in Queensland like to talk a big game about coming down to Canberra and sticking up for regional Queenslanders. We know they've been very distracted by all sorts of shenanigans in their own party over the course of this week, but here's another example of where they are bowing down to the Liberal Party as the Liberal Party comes after regional Australia. With a tax cut to big companies, the biggest companies in Australia, where do you think that money's going to land? I don't see too many massive corporations headquartered in Rockhampton, Townsville, Cairns or Gladstone. This is going to be a massive tax cut to big business on the North Shore of Sydney and in Collins Street in Melbourne, at the expense of regional Australians. So yet again we've got the LNP members from Queensland coming down to Canberra, saying they're going to stick up for regional Queensland and yet again putting up their hands to vote for big business in North Sydney and Melbourne getting a big tax cut.
The government says that this is going to increase profits and that's how we're going to get wages growth, but the ABC had a report based on Treasury modelling, the government's own modelling, which shows that, over the last few years, company profits have been higher than they have been at any time since the early 2000s. But what do you know? Over that exact same period of time, wages have been growing at a rate that hasn't been this low since the 1960s. So we don't need to speculate about what's going to happen if this tax cut gets through. We've already got the evidence there. Company profits have never been higher, or at least not for 10 or 15 years, and wages remain low. The evidence is in that this company tax cut will do nothing for ordinary Australians. It will not lift their wages. It will just shovel more money to big business in North Sydney and Melbourne at the expense of regional Queensland, and a lot of it will end up with overseas investors anyway.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (15:14): I've got to confess I made a new year's resolution and I think I'm going to regret it. The resolution was: every time the Labor Party tells a lie, I'm going to respond by telling the truth. I feel that it's going to keep me very, very busy, based on Senator Watt's contribution. I'm going to address two or three of the untruths that he said. He was just parroting, of course, his union masters: Sally McManus, from the ACTU, and other unions, like the CFMEU.
In Senator Watt's contribution—and we're going to call him out every time; we're going to call out Labor every time they tell a porky, whether it's in this place or anywhere else—he said casualisation is increasing. That's what the ACTU and the Labor Party say and it's what Senator Watt said. Well, actually, the rate of casualisation is not increasing; it's been steady for the last two decades at around 25 per cent. The Fair Work Commission agrees, noting that last year the level of casual employment had not significantly changed since the enactment of the Fair Work Act. So there's porky No. 1. Every time the ACTU or their puppets here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives repeat that lie we'll call it out. It's a lie; it's not true. The Australian people need to know that it's not true.
Another one that came from Senator Watt—again parroting Sally McManus, his union master—is that the use of labour hire is increasing. Not true! The proportion of people employed through a labour hire firm has been broadly stable at around one to two per cent over the past decade. That comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Characteristics of Employment Survey. So you can believe Senator Watt, parroting Sally McManus, who says, 'The law doesn't apply to us'—the truth apparently doesn't apply to Sally McManus or to Senator Watt when he comes into this place—or you can believe the ABS, who say that in fact it is not true.
I will deal with another untruth put forward by Senator Watt in his motion to take note of answers, which was in many ways the more damaging lie, but I will just make one other point on casualisation. There were 400,000 jobs created last year, around 80 per cent of them full time. So not only has it not changed significantly over the last 25 years; we've got record jobs growth, and that record jobs growth includes 80 per cent—the vast majority—that are full-time jobs. That is outstanding news and completely debunks what was put forward by the senator.
I would point out that the other just as significant, and perhaps more significant, untruth that is being put forward by the Labor Party and Senator Watt is that you can keep taxes high and the economy will still grow. You can keep taxes high, according to the Labor Party, and of course it will have no impact on jobs and no impact on wages. Not one credible economist would agree with that statement—not one credible economist. The economics of this are clear: if you want to increase taxes, as the Labor Party does—$160 billion in additional taxes on mum and dad investors; more taxes on renters; and more taxes on mum and dad small businesses, effectively a tax on workers—what will it do? If the Labor Party's policies were implemented, what would they do? They would put downward pressure on wages and see fewer Australians in work. They would see businesses laying off workers. And now we get the suggestion, in today's questions from Senator Watt and others, that there should now be a tax on revenue. That is the implication of the line of questioning from the Labor Party. They are now suggesting one of two things. One is that, if you've got a lot of revenue, you should pay tax; it shouldn't be profit based. We believe that tax should be paid by companies on their profits. We believe that lowering profit based taxes on companies increases the number of jobs in our economy, increases wages and increases prosperity. But the other implication of what the Labor Party are suggesting is somehow that, if companies make losses, they shouldn't be able to offset them against future earnings. That again would have dangerous implications for our economy.
In conclusion, we're going to call out the lies. If Senator Watt and others are going to come in here and make up claims about casualisation of the workforce that are not true, we're going to put the facts on the table every time and call them out so the Australian people can see that they are simply hollow— (Time expired)
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:19): It just shows you how desperate the government is, for Senator Seselja to put up a straw man imputing that we're suggesting taxes should be levied on revenue rather than profit. That is just a measure of the desperation of the arguments here.
For me, it was disappointing to not hear anything of substance from the finance minister in question time in relation to this particular issue. In our questioning, we have raised very substantial issues of public policy, which are raised today in the very good ABC article authored by Emma Alberici. Some extremely important issues are raised, and what do we see from Senator Cormann? We see insults, derogatory epithets hurled at the Leader of the Opposition, and the suggestion that future government revenue is going to be impacted if we don't bring about these irresponsible tax cuts.
Let's look at the facts as they stand. There are some extremely valid points. I was hoping that the government might come up with some compelling evidence that justifies the tax cuts, which some would argue are somewhat reckless in our current fiscal situation. One would have thought that with the amount of money involved—$65 billion—there could be some compelling evidence put forward to justify them. But, no, nothing of that nature was put forward. In fact, the government's arguments are based on ideology and wishful thinking, not on the evidence that's before us.
Let's have a look at this. This is a government that does support the top end of town. They have abolished the budget repair levy, ignored our calls for tax transparency in closing debt deduction loopholes, ruled out negative gearing and capital gains tax reform, run a protection racket for the big banks whilst ripping off everyday Australians, and they're trying to raise personal income tax across the board, by stealth, through the Medicare levy—and Senator Watt has called them out on that issue.
At the same time, we are seeing wages growth at historical lows. The inconvenient truth is that, at the same time, we have company profits that have risen to levels not seen since the early 2000s, and we've seen business investment at historically high levels over the past decade. If the system was working, and if we were to put more money in the hands of companies, then you would have thought that wages growth would have been impacted by that. But we're not seeing that. We are seeing that the model is broken. To go down the track of huge and reckless company tax cuts for the big end of town, for multinationals, for the big banks, is quite a reckless approach. We are also seeing penalty rates being cut for thousands of already low-paid workers—often disadvantaged workers. The workforce is becoming more casualised, as Senator Watt has highlighted, affecting job security. The cost of living is going up with medical expenses, private health insurance, energy bills, groceries and education.
Under the coalition's watch, the budget is going from bad to worse. We saw in the MYEFO late last year that the $23.6 billion deficit remains eight times larger than the $2.8 billion deficit in the Liberals' first horror budget of 2014. Net debt has blown out by $80 billion, to $343 billion, since 2014. Economic growth is down, on the back of families struggling to pay their bills, and the Liberals' return to surplus continues to rely on the tax hike for middle Australia delivered in this year's budget.
The No. 1 priority for this government seems to be giving their big business mates a tax cut to the tune of $65 billion. Well, perhaps that's not quite true—perhaps their top priority at the moment is figuring out how to get the Deputy Prime Minister to resign—but let's say it is one of their top priorities. Why is it necessary for us to deliver huge company tax cuts for the big end of town when, at the same time, one in five of Australia's biggest companies have paid no tax for at least the past three years? The IMF report, which is quite interesting to see—and I have highlighted this fact—points to the negative impact of the US tax cut package on growth and says that it's projected to lower growth for a few years from 2022 onwards, according to the IMF World Economic Outlook. Labor will continue to lead the charge in cracking down on corporate tax cuts. We don't need tax cuts for multinational multimillionaires. (Time expired)
Senator HUME (Victoria) (15:25): The professional homogeneity of those opposite is certainly on display today, and I think we can all agree that the problem with professional homogeneity is that is translates into uncritical groupthink worthy of dairy cows. I have never heard of such economic rubbish in my life. Clearly those opposite have never run a business, they've never owned a business, they've never employed another person, they've never put their house on the line and they've never lost sleep at night wondering how they were going to pay the wages of others tomorrow. What we see opposite is either an extraordinary display of economic ignorance or complete disingenuousness. It's got to be one of the two.
For those opposite to come in here and say that these enormous companies pay no tax and, therefore, there is no reason to lower company tax rates is the height of ignorance. Let's have a look at some of the companies that do pay corporate tax. The big four banks are extraordinarily large corporate tax players. The Commonwealth Bank pays $3.3 billion, Westpac pays $3 billion, NAB pays $2.4 billion and ANZ pays $2 billion. Those four companies alone employ over 200,000 Australians. Telstra paid $1.7 billion in corporate tax—and they employ 36,000 Australians. Rio Tinto paid $23 billion and they employ 26,000 Australians. Wesfarmers paid $931 billion and they employ 200,000 Australians. Woolworths paid $497 million and they employ 200,000 Australians. In fact, the top 10 company taxpayers in this country paid a quarter of all company taxes collected in the last 12 months, and they are responsible for an enormous proportion of employment in Australia.
So how could anybody with any economic nous, anybody with the ability to connect the dots from A to B, possibly suggest that a company tax cut would not benefit Australian workers? It is a completely false, ignorant and, as I said, potentially disingenuous statement. We say 'disingenuous' for a very good reason. It was not that long ago that their own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said that 'reducing the corporate tax rate sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow onto workers in the form of higher wages, therefore improving standards of living'. This is your leader that said this. It wasn't our leader; this was your leader. Yet somehow you've managed to flip-flop, somehow you've managed to change your minds. I can only think it is political expediency, potentially in the seat of Batman, that has driven you to do so.
Similarly, the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has also previously stated—and I love this quote—that 'it is a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth'. This is your shadow Treasurer saying this, not ours. Yet you now have the audacity to walk into the chamber and accuse us of the economics of the top end of town. How extraordinary—particularly when we've seen the company tax cuts delivered to 3.2 million small and medium businesses last year actually taking effect. The verdict is in. That company tax cut has already given small and medium sized enterprises the flexibility to grow their business and to create more and better paid jobs. The results couldn't be clearer.
As my colleague Senator Seselja said 400,000 new jobs were created just in the last 12 months alone, and 300,000 of them are full time. We have had 15 months of consecutive jobs growth—that is the longest consecutive run of jobs growth on record. In January alone, 178,000 jobs were advertised. That's up 6.2 per cent, and the strongest monthly increase in eight years. These results are irrefutable. Despite an economy that's been disrupted by the transition from a mining boom, the laws of demand and supply are still the same: more jobs create better-paying jobs. Company tax cuts are an imperative.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:30): The government's argument on corporate tax is equal parts sophistry and wishful thinking, and nothing demonstrates this better than a very careful unpacking of Senator Cormann's very glib response to Senator Watt that in Australia we tax profits, not revenue. Let's reflect on what's actually prompting this conversation. Analysis published by the ABC showed that roughly one in five of Australia's largest companies paid no corporate income tax over the last three years. This includes some companies that have been the most vocal in calling for a reduction in the headline rate of corporate tax. Not one of Australia's airlines has paid tax since 2013. Some of Australia's biggest investment banks, including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, have not either, and neither have other financial institutions like BNP Paribas, American Express, Barclays bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland, as well as News Corp, Atlassian—supposedly one of Australia's big success stories—and a host of other companies.
Senator Cormann is absolutely correct in saying that Australia taxes profit, not revenue. But that is not the point. It is not the point being made by Labor and it is not the point, incidentally, being made by the ABC analysis. It simply is not credible to argue for a reduction in tax for a bunch of companies, many of whom haven't paid any at all for the last three years. How can you claim that a reduction in company tax is going to lead you to paying workers more or investing more if you are not paying any tax at the moment? It simply isn't credible. The argument that it frees up more cash simply doesn't work, because literally no cash is being expended on tax right now. If you have an accumulated tax loss, a reduction in the company tax rate doesn't affect how much money you've got to spend on other things today—not even a tiny little bit. All it impacts on is how many more years you've got before you need to start paying any company tax at all.
More than that though: Senator Cormann's line about taxing revenue, not profit, is a little disingenuous, to use the word employed by Senator Hume earlier. Let's be clear: for the most part, these companies are very, very healthy. They have a decent listing price. They are able to borrow at reasonable rates. Their executives get performance bonuses, and many of them pay out to their shareholders. In other words, they are profitable by any ordinary understanding of that term. But they don't pay taxes on those profits, because they have very expensive and very comprehensive legal advice which, incidentally, they are then able to write off as a tax expense.
The question for Senator Cormann and the government is this: do they really believe it is fair for these companies to pay even less tax than they do now? After two years of the Senate economics committee on which Senator Hume sits taking evidence about the practices of corporations in structuring their tax affairs to avoid tax, do they really think that these sharp practices are reasonable and ought to be continued?
We are trying to have a public conversation about how to fund the state and the services that every Australian benefits from, and Senator Cormann is palming the public off with glib answers that, frankly, belong in an accounting exam. As economists emphasise, companies don't make investment decisions based solely on the headline tax rate. Instead, companies look to things like roads, rail and other infrastructure, paid for by the Australian taxpayer. They look to the skills of our workforce, educated by the Australian taxpayer. They look to the reliability of our justice system, funded by the Australian taxpayer. If a company is not paying tax then the ordinary Australian is going to think that the company is a leaner, not a lifter. If the government seriously think that the best response to this argument is a technical accounting argument about the difference between profits and revenue, they are more out of touch than I could possibly have imagined.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind advisers that they are to remain in the advisers box and not on the floor of the Senate. I didn't want to interrupt Senator McAllister during her contribution.
Question agreed to.
Mining
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:35): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to the Adani coal mine.
Today we learned that the ABC has revealed that the Adani Group paid no tax on its Abbot Point coal terminal, a project that was running for three years until mid-2016. It earned almost $1 billion, and not one cent of that flowed back to the Australian people. Of course, to add insult to injury, we also learned that, while Adani pays no tax, it is also polluting Australian coastal waters and wetlands with coal-laden stormwater, and then it refuses to pay a $12,000 fine. This company is an absolute disgrace. We learned from the environment department that Adani may have been negligent because it didn't disclose its CEO's history of causing serious environmental harm in Zambia. This is a company that should not be opening in Australia, and it certainly should not be opening up one of the world's biggest coalmines.
The good news is that it seems that the Australian Labor Party is waking up to Adani's appalling financial and environmental track record. That is a good thing, and we welcome that shift in position, although we wait with anticipation for full-throated opposition to that mine. We know why it's happened. It's taken a huge Greens win in the Northcote by-election and now the prospect of a by-election in Batman. We know that, on the back of a big Greens result in Queensland and, of course, a huge campaign from the Stop Adani movement there, the Labor Party is looking to shift its position. That's good. That's democracy in action. But do you know what? The people of Batman are a bit smarter than that. They know that this isn't a question of whether somebody shifts their position in the lead-up to an election. What they want to see is an optimistic, forward-looking, progressive vision for this country.
This is a by-election where we will see two competing visions for the Australian nation. One vision is to see a minor shift in position towards one coalmine on the basis of that company's track record. The other position is to recognise that we can't open up new coalmines. Whether it be Adani or an Australian company with a track record that is not as bad as Adani's, the answer must be the same: we cannot continue to open up new coalmines in the Galilee Basin, or anywhere else in Australia for that matter. We need to stop opening up new coalmines. We need to make the transition to green, clean renewable energy with the jobs that it brings, with the reduction in energy prices that it brings and, of course, with the huge investment that comes with a burgeoning new industry.
The people of Batman understand that this is the opportunity to express their view about what they want the future of their community to look like. They also want a party that stands up for decency and compassion when it comes to innocent people seeking asylum. They want to see those offshore detention centres closed. They want to see a party that stands up to racism and bigotry and that doesn't appease the far right. They want to see a party that's prepared to tackle inequality through housing affordability by making sure that renters are given more rights and that loopholes are closed. They want to see a party that is prepared to put the interests of community ahead of its corporate donors and bring some integrity into the Australian political system. That's what the Greens provide.
The Greens have been achieving so much through our campaigning, through our advocacy, through our work in the community and through our work in the parliament. It is now a wonderful opportunity for the people of Batman to say that that's what they want to see in this place and right across the community. Whether it's Adani, whether it's housing affordability, whether it's a banking royal commission, or whether it's a national anti-corruption watchdog, what we're seeing is the Greens leading the national policy debate in this country. Is it any wonder that the old parties want to avoid a banking royal commission when they're the beneficiaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the financial sector. When you see where those big donations are coming from, is it any wonder that taxpayers' money is handed out to the mining sector and the private health insurance sector rather than being invested in renewables, schools and hospitals. That's what the people of Batman will see in the coming weeks as the Greens continue to campaign with our terrific candidate, Alex Bhathal—a strong, local, independent voice advocating courage, compassion and action on those things that matter.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Community Affairs References Committee—Transvaginal mesh implants—extended from today to 20 March 2018.
Economics References Committee—Banking, insurance and financial services sector—extended from 28 March to 26 June 2018.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup Peninsula—extended from today to 21 March 2018.
The PRESIDENT (15:41): Thank you, Clerk. I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:41): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator McCarthy for today for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Economics References Committee
Reference
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:42): At the request of Senator Ketter, I move:
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 McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:42): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: In December 2016 the Treasurer commissioned a study by the Productivity Commission into transitioning regional economies. The study was completed in December 2017 and provides detailed research and evidence into the effectiveness of policies designed to support regional prosperity and to reduce disadvantage. The government notes the ongoing workloads of committees and committee secretariats and related concerns about additional references.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
World Cholangiocarcinoma Day
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:43): I inform the chamber that Senator Griff will join Senator Bilyk in sponsoring notice of motion No. 710.
The PRESIDENT: So noted.
Senator URQUHART: At the request of Senators Bilyk and Griff, I move:
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 per cent, 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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:43): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The coalition government is supporting Australia's fight against rare cancers and rare diseases with a $69 million boost announced last month as part of our broader $6 billion investment in medical research over the course of the forward estimates.
Question agreed to.
HIV Prevention
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:44): I move:
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 1,000 notifications a year, and that the situation is particularly urgent in Indigenous communities, with HIV rates now trending above the rate for 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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government received the report of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee on 9 February and it's currently under consideration. This government has listed all medicines that have received a positive recommendation by the committee. Funding is currently being provided to a number of organisations for community-led efforts, including prevention and education activities, access to technology for treatments and testing, and surveillance and research activities for HIV.
Question agreed to.
Aged Care
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:45): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the latest waiting list for aged care home care packages indicates 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 the waiting list had grown by more than 12 000 between 1 July 2017 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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:45): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The coalition government is committed to quality care for senior Australians, with a record $18.6 billion aged-care investment, part of nearly $100 billion committed over the next five years. In February 2017, the government transitioned to a new homecare system, which gives consumers more choice and control over their care. For the first time this new system allows for a better understanding of the extent of demand for homecare packages nationally.
Under Labor, the ratios set for release of homecare packages were inadequate and severely underestimated the real demand. The introduction of the new national privatisation queue has uncovered the extent of the problem. In September 2017, the government announced the release of 6,000 additional level 3 and 4 homecare packages over 2017-18—more than doubling the planned growth of high-level packages this financial year.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Indigenous Housing
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (15:46): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 716, standing in my name for today, concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Housing.
Leave granted.
Senator DODSON: I move the motion as amended:
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) orders that all correspondence between the Minister 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, be laid on the table 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 for a period of no more than 2 hours.
I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than two minutes.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DODSON: We have listened carefully to the minister responding to several questions asked by the opposition this week on the future funding for remote housing. Some of the minister's answers have unfortunately been scrambled. We need the record to be cleared on this important matter. Housing is fundamental to closing the gap, and Labor wants to help the minister clarify the situation by giving him an opportunity to provide us with all correspondence between himself and the states and territories on this issue.
The states and territories, we believe, will assist the minister and clear the correspondence promptly. I inform the Senate that the motion has been amended to specify that a time period of no more than two hours will be made available to debate the minister's response. I thank Senator Griff for his contribution in relation to that matter.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:48): I seek leave to make a short statement?
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government has been clear that it is in negotiations with state and territory governments regarding future investment in remote and Indigenous housing. While the government maintains that states and territory governments must take up the responsibility, we have been clear that Commonwealth funding is on the table as part of these negotiations. The government does not support this motion, as it will be more appropriate for these negotiations to be conducted through normal processes, rather than through public and political debate.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Kangaroos
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:49): I, and also on behalf of Senators Hinch and Bartlett, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australian Government management of kangaroos tends to be structured to service commercial shooting and farming industries,
(ii) in 2015, between 65 000 and 650 000 kangaroos suffered non-lethal body-shots and a further 110 000 joeys died from commercial shooting alone, with pouch joeys decapitated or their skulls crushed,
(iii) kangaroos are slow-growing and are shot beyond their low reproductive capacity, with long-term government raw data illustrating kangaroo absence and decline, yet this is not reflected in the published population estimates from which an impossibly high commercial shooting quota is extracted, and
(iv) kangaroo is a wild-shot bushmeat and is butchered and transported on open unrefrigerated trucks in the field and, in 2014, Russia banned kangaroo meat imports for a third time due to contamination, with rapid food security alerts in the European Union about kangaroo meat since then; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth and all states to make available all historical and current kangaroo survey data and methodologies, and commercial and non-commercial shooting and demographics data for all shooting zones across Australia.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:49): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: While all state-managed harvests of kangaroos for international export must be approved by the state government, kangaroo management, including animal welfare, is primarily the responsibility of state and territories governments. State management plans require that the harvest of kangaroos is sustainable and humane. There have been no adverse long-term impacts on kangaroo populations after more than 30 years of kangaroo harvest management plans. In fact, there are an estimated 47 million kangaroos across Australia today compared with 27 million in 2010. The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes agreed by all states in 2008 must be complied with under each of the states' management plans.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Iraq War
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:58): I move general business notice of motion No. 717 standing in my name for today:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that this week marks the fifteen-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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:58): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: There is no need for an inquiry into Australia's contribution to military operations in Iraq. The circumstances in which Australia committed forces to the coalition effort in Iraq are a matter of public record and have been subject to parliamentary inquiry. The Australian Defence Force operates under strict rules of engagement in accordance with domestic and international law.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The opposition does not support the call for yet another inquiry into Australia's involvement in the Iraq War. Labor's view on the Iraq War is well known. In 2003, Labor opposed the commitment of troops to the conflict in Iraq without the endorsement of the UN. It was the former Labor government that took the decision to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq in 2008. The circumstances surrounding the decision to commit troops to the Iraq War have been the subject of a number of parliamentary inquiries, particularly in the Senate. The specific issue of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction has also been the subject of extensive government and parliamentary reviews, including the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD and the 2004 Flood inquiry into Australian intelligence agencies.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Energy
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:04): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) electricity prices have gone up 12.4 per cent 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 last 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 per cent 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.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:04): Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: This is just another desperate attempt by the Greens to be relevant in the energy debate. Labor agrees with the concerns identified in the motion and that there's no doubt that the Liberals' record of privatisation failed to deliver lower prices and all the other things the Liberals said it would. But Australia needs comprehensive energy market reform to support the uptake of renewables with storage and to support a national strategic approach to new transmission investment. That's what Labor will actually deliver. The Greens' promise to nationalise electricity transmission is just another example of a Greens announcement that's all sound and fury but signifies nothing but politics and has no substance. Labor has a plan to deliver 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030 to modernise the energy system and deliver a strategic national plan to new transmission investment. We're focused on delivering for the Australian people and won't be distracted by Greens political stunts and thought bubbles.
The PRESIDENT: The question is the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Gambling
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:13): I, and also on behalf of Senator Bartlett and Senator McKim, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia is home to 0.3 per cent of the world's population, but 18 per cent 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 per cent 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, relationships 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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:13): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government has acknowledged the harm caused by gambling addiction in Australia. The regulation of poker machines is a matter for state governments. The Australian government has committed to the implementation of venue based voluntary precommitment outlined in the Gambling Measures Act 2012. This is identified by the Productivity Commission as the most targeted and potentially effective measure to tackle this problem.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 720, moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Mining Industry: Adani
Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (16:18): I move:
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 "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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:19): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The Department of the Environment and Energy undertook a review into the matter. Adani Mining cooperated fully with this review. The outcome of the review was to send a letter cautioning the company, which was received by the company. The department's approach was consistent with its published compliance and enforcement policy and is an appropriate response to the findings of the review.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:19): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: We note that this motion could have no practical effect under the EPBC Act.
Question negatived.
Tasmania: Environment
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:20): I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move:
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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:20): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The coalition government strongly supports sustainable development, tourism, and food and fibre production in Tasmania. While most planning and development processes are a matter for the state government, the federal government ensures rigorous assessment of potential impacts to matters of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Australia is among more than 170 countries that have ratified the Paris agreement on climate change. Australia's 2030 target to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels is comparable with other advanced economies and will halve our per capita emissions.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business motion No. 722 moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:22]
(The President—Senator Ryan).
South Australian State Election
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:25): I move:
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.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:25): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: South Australians have an important choice at the upcoming state election. Only Steven Marshall and the Liberal team have a strong plan for real change. This is a contest of a leader, Steven Marshall, who wants to provide more opportunity and greater prosperity for South Australia and, importantly, has the plan to deliver it, versus four more years of failure and mismanagement under Jay Weatherill and Labor. A vote for any other party than the Liberals on 17 March risks another four years of the same tired, chaotic dysfunction in South Australian politics.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! We're getting towards the end of housekeeping.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:26): I'd like to seek leave to make a truthful statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARRELL: Labor will be supporting this motion. I'd like to thank Senator Bernardi for giving us the opportunity here to remind the chamber about the leadership of the South Australian Labor government and encourage South Australians to re-elect them for a historic fifth term. Whether it be the South Australian government's leadership on jobs, on health, on education or on energy, the choice for South Australian voters is clear.
I'll happily be contributing to the debate on the matter of public importance today as the chamber takes the time to list the achievements of the Labor government in my home state, but for now I'll leave you with a quote from the gentleman that the former speaker referred to in a passionate and heartfelt— (Time expired)
Senator Farrell interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, resume your seat. Your microphone is turned off, so no-one can hear it.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:27): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Of course, the Greens will be supporting this motion as well. If South Australians want to see a state that invests in renewable energy, that takes climate change seriously and that wants to save the River Murray, then there is only one choice, and that's to vote Greens.
The PRESIDENT: We're living up to our design as the states house today, I note.
Question agreed to.
Environment
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:28): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) holds that human life is more important than animal life; and
(b) calls upon the Government to prioritise human life in all portfolio areas, including the environment portfolio when balancing fire prevention against biodiversity conservation.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (16:28): Mr President, Homo sapiens are part—
The PRESIDENT: I gather you're seeking leave to make a statement?
Senator RHIANNON: Sorry, Mr President; I'm seeking leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RHIANNON: Homo sapiens are part of the Animalia kingdom, or, to put it in plain English for Senator Cory Bernardi, humans are animals. Senator Bernardi is an animal. Given that this motion fails high-school-level biology, the Greens cannot take seriously any argument that Senator Bernardi has to make on the complex issues of biodiversity conservation and fire management in our forests.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:29): I seek leave to make a very brief statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator BERNARDI: Mr President, I can only throw the lures out; I can't help if the fools bite.
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Privilege
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:30): I move:
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.
At the request of the Labor Party, I seek leave to have items (a) and (c) put separately to item (b) in respect of this motion.
Leave granted.
The PRESIDENT: The first question is that paragraphs (a) and (c) of motion No. 712 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: The second question is that paragraph (b) of motion No. 712 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
That the order of the Senate agreed to on 31 August 2016, as amended on 12 February 2018, relating to the allocation of departments and agencies to legislative and general purpose standing committees, be amended as follows:
Omit "Health and Aged Care", substitute "Health".
Omit "Infrastructure and Transport", substitute "Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities".
Senator Cameron to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate requests that Ms Glenys Beauchamp, PSM and Dr Chris Pigrim appear before the Economics Legislation Committee to answer questions at the additional estimates hearing on 28 February 2018 or 1 March 2018 when the committee is examining the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. ( general business notice of motion no. 723)
Senator Urquhart to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that the $210 million funding cut to South Australian schools and $68 million in Tasmanian schools, in 2018 and 2019, means that schools will face significant cuts; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to immediately reinstate the funding previously committed to South Australian and Tasmanian schools. ( general business notice of motion no. 724)
Senator McKim to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 13 February 2018, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released an update on UNHCR observations from their latest mission to Manus Island,
(ii) UNHCR Regional Protection Officer, Mr Rico Salcedo, stated "What stood out the most from this mission at the time we were there, was a pervasive and worsening sense of despair among refugees and asylum seekers",
(iii) the UNHCR further stated "We cannot emphasize enough that solutions must be found for all, outside of Papua New Guinea, as a matter of urgency. Australia remains ultimately responsible, as the state from which these refugees and asylum seekers have sought international protection, for their welfare and long-term settlement outside of Papua New Guinea", and
(iv) there have been recent reports of deteriorating conditions on Nauru, and that refugees and people seeking asylum on Nauru are also the responsibility of Australia; and
(b) calls on the Government to end offshore detention, and evacuate to Australia every person who sought asylum in Australia and who is currently in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. ( general business notice of motion no. 725)
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the Budget Priorities Statement 2018-19 of the Australian Council of Social Service launched this week in Canberra;
(b) recognises that research, from 2017, shows that single rates of unemployment payments are completely inadequate to cover basic living costs;
(c) acknowledges that our social safety net currently fails to protect those seeking work from falling into poverty;
(d) notes that the Australian Council of Social Service calls for an increase of $75 a week to allowance payments for single people from 1 January 2019; and
(e) urges the Federal Government to increase the single rate of Newstart and related allowances by $75 a week. ( general business notice of motion no. 726)
Senator Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep concern that:
(i) the war in Syria is almost to its eighth year, with no end in sight, and
(ii) the world has witnessed untold horror throughout the war, including indiscriminate killing, the deliberate targeting of civilians and medical facilities, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and millions being displaced;
(b) further notes that the 2003 Iraq War was a major catalyst of the war in Syria, including contributing to the rise of ISIS;
(c) calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to respect the Geneva Conventions and commit to a peaceful resolution to the crisis; and
(d) calls on the Australian Government to launch an independent inquiry into the Iraq War. ( general business notice of motion no. 727)
Senator Kitching to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table, by 5 pm on 15 February 2018, by:
(a) the Minister for Defence, details of any Special Purpose Flights taken by by members of the executive in 2017, noting that no reports on the use of Special Purpose Flights since 3 July 2016 have been tabled.
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) welcomes the visit by a delegation of leaders from the Kiribati Climate Action Network and the Kiribati Ministry of Education;
(b) notes the strong bonds that exists between the people of Australia and the people of Kiribati;
(c) notes, with deep concern, the impacts that climate change is already having on Kiribati, including soil erosion and salinity, which is affecting crops and drinking water;
(d) is further concerned at reports from the 23th United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2017, that the Australian delegation pushed back against poorer countries, including Kiribati, who were calling for more funding for loss and damage caused by climate change; and
(e) calls on the Government to:
(i) increase its support to Pacific Island nations, including Kiribati, through climate finance that is separate and additional to our existing official development assistance budget,
(ii) significantly increase our commitments to cut emissions under the Paris Agreement in 2018, and take into account loss and damage caused by climate change, and
(iii) commit to no new coal mines in Australia, and rule out Adani's Carmichael coal mine. ( general business notice of motion no. 729)
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, and for related purposes. Australian Human Rights Commission Repeal (Duplication Removal) Bill 2018. ( general business notice of motion no. 730)
Abortion
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (16:32): I move:
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, 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.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ANNING: Abortion is a confronting and divisive topic charged with emotion. However, despite what might be suggested, abortion is not liberation; it is the abandonment of women at their most vulnerable. Human life is sacred, born or unborn. No matter at what stage of development, they have an inherent right to life and liberty. Unfortunately, the reality today is that that isn't the case. We have seen outrage over the destruction of kangaroos, yet where is the same compassion when it comes to an unborn human? We have seen decisions to terminate a life based solely on a woman's socioeconomic situation. I am proud to be from a state that values life. I recognise the complexities of the issue and, as such, call on my colleagues to support the provision of fully funded counselling services without discrimination of circumstances.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Acting Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:33): I seek leave to make a brief statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The opposition does not believe that complex matters such as the one being raised in this motion should be dealt with in formal business. The purpose of formal business is, by its nature, to fast-track consideration of matters that don't require discussion. I think if we reflect on today's session, as other senators have, it's an example to that point. I rise not to make a partisan point but to note that this is a sensitive matter and one that evokes a wide range of views from all senators in this place. Asking the Senate to vote for a simple motion on this topic does not afford senators the opportunity to outline their individual positions adequately, nor the time frame to address them. I foreshadow that if motions on this issue or similar issues are to become a more regular matter in formal business, then it is likely that some senators will choose not to vote on such motions.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:34): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: As this motion involves a matter of conscience, Liberal and National Party senators will be voting in accordance with their own conscience. I should also indicate that the government currently provides access to pregnancy support counselling services.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (16:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HINCH: I find this motion absolutely disgusting. I felt ashamed, as a male, to stand in my office last night discussing it with the female members of my staff. It has no place in this Senate.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (16:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RICE: The Greens won't be supporting Senator Anning's motion today, primarily because it is unnecessary—the federal government already funds pregnancy termination counselling services and online resources, which include information on termination options. It is clear from the wording of this motion that it attempts to present an anti-abortion position that denies women's reproductive rights without actually stating that. But Senator Anning's statement today made it very clear where he stands. It is appalling. All women deserve the right to choose and to control their own reproductive rights, including in Tasmania and other parts where surgical abortions are now not possible. No matter where a women lives in this country, she deserves the right to control her own life.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 709 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:41]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Kurdish People
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:43): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 719, relating to the war in Syria, be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
Senator McGrath: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is an objection, Senator Di Natale, so the matter cannot be dealt with without debate.
Senator DI NATALE: In lieu of moving to suspend standing orders, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: Again we see the government blocking the will of the Senate and refusing to allow us the chance to vote on this important motion. Let's be clear about this: this is about this parliament letting the Kurdish people down again. These are the Kurdish people who have put their lives on the line to help defeat ISIS. They've helped the Yazidi people escape genocide. This is a group of people across the Middle East who have been the victims of genocide in successive parts of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Now Turkey's begun an offensive in one of the most stable and secure parts of Syria. The Syrian people have suffered enough. Turkey's actions seriously risk provoking another humanitarian crisis in Syria. It's jeopardising the peace process in Syria, and Australia must make our concerns known and use all diplomatic means to end Turkey's incursion.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: As formal motions cannot be debated or amended they should not deal with complex and contested foreign policy matters which have potential to damage Australia's international relations. The Senate should not vote on such motions without the ability to have a full debate, given the serious and substantial issues involved.
The government is aware of Turkey's ongoing operations in Afrin province in northern Syria, and notes reports of air and ground operations, including the involvement of a Free Syrian Army. We are concerned that violence could escalate further, and call on all actors to exercise restraint and focus on defeating the remnants of ISIL. The ongoing fighting in northern Syria underscores the need for a political solution to end the civil war.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
South Australian State Election
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Leyonhjelm ) ( 16:45 ): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today six 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 Bernardi:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The vital importance that the South Australian state election on March 17th produces a government focussed on energy reliability, energy affordability, attracting business investment, lower unemployment and a South Australian economy that contributes better to the national economy.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerk to set the clock accordingly. Senator Bernardi.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:47): This is an important motion because in around a month's time the South Australian people will face an election critical to the future and good fortunes of my state. This is effectively the last opportunity we will have in this place to bell the cat about some of the issues that are confronting South Australia and to examine some of the solutions, or non-solutions, that haven't been put forward by some of the major parties. And it's significant because what happens in South Australia will affect the rest of the Commonwealth. It's no secret that there are many people who complain about the additional GST that South Australia receives above what it generates for itself. After 17 March the question is going to be that the government in South Australia is either going to lift its game and grow the national pie or continue to keep begging from the Commonwealth as it seeks to grow the size of government. This is the essence of what we face.
In South Australia industry is in decline and confidence is in decline, and it manifestly resolves around the approach of government. The Weatherill government, which has been a Labor government for 16 years, is as much an indictment on the Liberal opposition as on their own ideological bent. I say that because for 16 years they have got away virtually unchallenged in the parliamentary term. They've rarely been confronted about the most significant issues that our state has had to deal with.
When it comes to elections, the Liberals have done reasonably well. They've had the popular vote on more than a couple of occasions, but they haven't got it in the right spot. Their weakness has allowed the Weatherill government to pursue an agenda which has done an enormous disservice. Firstly, we have a massive focus of employment within the public service, which is unsustainable. There are a legacy of elections where they say they're going to make sure that 5,000 additional front-line public service places are implemented, and over the course of the next two or three years there are tens of thousands of jobs that are created there. You may say that is good, but they're back-office services, they're designed to entrench government as the centre of the economy and they're not delivering prosperity or reasonable outcomes to the people of South Australia.
Nowhere is this more glaring than in the idea of electricity generation. I've been very critical of this for a very, very long time in this place. I do not buy the subsidies for green power, wind power and solar power; I do not accept this is in our long-term interest. The ideological obsession of those on the other side of the chamber—and too many on this side, I might add—against coal, against gas and against fossil fuels has perhaps produced the Petri dish which is called the South Australian electricity industry. It's no secret that we have the most unreliable and unaffordable electricity in the Western world—or almost. It's because the Labor government has been pursuing a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, which I regret the Liberal Party signed up to as well as the Xenophon party. The result is we've got a lot of unedifying windmills, we have a lot of solar panels and we don't have any electricity to drive the things that create jobs and generate wealth.
What's the answer to the blackouts and the unreliability according to the Weatherill government? It's to get Tesla's PT Barnum, the equivalent of the monorail salesman from The Simpsons, Mr Elon Musk, to come out to Australia to spend $100 million on a battery that will power the state for about four minutes should it be required. In the meantime, in order to justify and pretend that there is not a problem, they're burning tens of millions of litres of diesel fuel and funding running diesel generators to keep the electricity on during the day. It is an appalling indictment; it is a sleight of hand.
The Labor Party have been able to get away with it because of the weakness of the opposition. Mr Marshall may be a well-meaning man, but he was hugging windmills when he should have been blowing them up. He was helping to blow up the coal-fired power station, when he should have been saying, 'No, let's retain it.' The man has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to every party position that he has actually had, and I can only reflect on the malaise that is infecting South Australia when I quote someone from the opposition benches. They said, 'We might not be any better than the other mob, but we sure won't be any worse.' What a terrible choice, and little wonder that former Senator Xenophon is capturing this market and never being held to account. This is the travesty: Senator Xenophon and his party are taking on the mantra up here of just throwing billions of dollars of borrowed money at issues, but not fixing them—all care and no responsibility.
This is not what South Australia can afford. We need a principled approach to making South Australia the most competitive it can be, and you do that by cutting taxes. You do that by providing the unique competitive advantage that Australia has hitherto had: the cheapest and most reliable electricity program anywhere in the world. That is what will sustain manufacturing. That is what will attract industry. It will retain people in our state: if there are jobs for them and if the utilities are affordable. The quality of life in South Australia, outside of not having a job or the price of electricity, is amazing. We have an abundance of resources. We have huge potential. We just need governments to get out of the way and actually unleash it. You don't get out of the way by foisting new taxes on individuals and making the cost of living unaffordable for them.
We have to do this. We have to fix states like South Australia in order to fix the Commonwealth, quite frankly. There is no way we can say we're going to reapportion some GST to the Western Australians without there being the consequential damage to another state. And who's going to put their hand up for that? No-one. We have to grow the pie, which means we have to make sure that every state can stand on its own and do it's very, very best. In order to do that, we can't dictate from here. We shouldn't centralise power here. We've got to make sure that we have governments in respective states that are going to deliver the services they want, without mortgaging the future of our children. We need governments that are going to produce the outcomes that are going to entice, attract or retain our young people. That is the great lament for so many people of my age in South Australia: we see our teenagers grow into adults and we watch them go away to university, and we wonder, 'Are they still going to be here in three, four or five years time?'
I reflect that, back in the nineties, we lost a generation of young workers in South Australia because of the malpractice and the malfeasance of the then state Labor government. It was terrible. It virtually bankrupted the state. We weren't alone in that, but we never managed to redress it because there was a lack of conviction from the government that ultimately replaced them. They were consumed by internal turmoil and factional warfare, which they're still paying the price for.
I come back to this: we cannot afford for my state, the state of South Australia—a very important state that is now the heart of defence manufacturing and that has enormous export potential in the grains, seafood, aquaculture and wine industries—to go backwards. That means we have to confront some of the issues that we're dealing with. I have enormous respect for my colleague Senator Ruston, who I'm sure is going to get up and talk about the potential of so much in South Australia and how it has been hamstrung. But there are very few in government who are without sin in this place. We need courage. It is going to take enormous courage to confront the necessary issues in South Australia. We're going to have to start to examine a nuclear fuel cycle in South Australia. We're going to have to recognise that we have 25 per cent of the world's uranium resources, and we're not allowed to use it. We have coal. We have gas. We have potential. We have a wonderful quality of life. We just need a government that is going to embrace it, get behind it, and back it to the hilt.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (16:56): I too rise to speak on the matter of public importance that has been put before this chamber by my colleague, and fellow senator from South Australia, Senator Bernardi. As a South Australian and a business owner, I, like Senator Bernardi, know the pain being inflicted on my home state of South Australia by the spiralling cost of energy. Extortionate prices are not the only thing we face in South Australia. In South Australia we contend not only with high prices but also with very unreliable power. This can be totally sheeted home to the ill-considered, ideological energy policy that has been inflicted on my state—
Senator Farrell interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: and your state, Senator Farrell—by the Weatherill Labor government. Mr Weatherill's absolutely idiotic 50-per-cent-renewable-energy experiment has made South Australia the laughing-stock of the nation. We can now boast the highest-cost, least-reliable power in the country—in fact, we can boast some of the highest-cost, least-reliable power in the developed world. South Australia's crazy solar- and wind-dependent energy policy forgot that, when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine, we don't have any power.
Senator Wong: That's just not true!
Senator RUSTON: I totally support moving to a clean energy future, Senator Wong, but to pursue such a policy without considering the transition process that needs to occur is totally irresponsible. So we now find a totally avoidable disaster occurring in South Australia.
Let me paint a little picture of what it looks like in South Australia at the moment. We have no real base load power, so we're totally reliant on the eastern states when we are without wind or solar energy generation. On any given day, families and businesses cannot be sure that the power won't go off. We've got elderly people in my home state of South Australia who leave their air conditioners off on hot days because they're fearful that they won't be able to pay their energy bills when they come in. We've got businesses installing generators because they fear of outages or power spikes. That costs them anything up to $13,000 per megawatt hour. The Labor Weatherill government's solution to this is a great big battery that can store enough energy to sustain South Australia's peak demand for a whopping 2½ minutes. It's really quite ironic that the battery is located in Jamestown because Jamestown was without power last weekend for four hours due to a blackout.
In addition to this, we have a bank of dirty diesel generators consuming diesel. It's interesting that nobody seems to see the irony that South Australia has paid hundreds of millions of dollars buying carbon-spewing diesel generators to fix the faults of a renewable energy policy. It seems quite extraordinary. I wonder if it's ever been considered what the impact on the cost of diesel is likely to be when 80,000 litres of diesel is consumed per hour by these diesel generators. What do you think that's likely to do to the price of diesel? And who in the community is likely to suffer the most from this? Our transport operators and our agricultural industry. We seem to conveniently forget that much of South Australia's economy is generated in our rural and regional areas. Unfortunately, the policies of this sad, tired Weatherill government are really biting in the country. Take, for example, my home area in the Riverland, on the River Murray in South Australia. We're a region that's entirely reliant on irrigation.
Senator Farrell interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: This is a region, Senator Farrell, that grows most of the fruit and vegetables that you and your family enjoy eating for dinner most nights of the week. Another irony for many irrigators is that taking up the government's call to improve water efficiency to help restore the Murray to long-term sustainable health has now made them much more dependent on electricity to drive their pressurised irrigation systems. I will quote for you some statistics that came from discussions with the Central Irrigation Trust. This is a trust that supplies water to a large part of the Riverland, all the way from Myponga in the Adelaide Hills to Renmark, where I live. Their electricity costs now account for 37 per cent of their total expenditure. Their prices have doubled in the last eight years. It's yet another sad experiment that has now cost South Australia.
We all know the statistics of the renewable energy policy of the South Australian Labor government and the impact and consequences it has had on South Australia. A 50 per cent renewable energy target without any process to transition, with baseload power cut off, has been an absolute disaster. Sadly, it's not just the Labor Party that is keen to pursue vanity policies on renewables. In fact, it was Peter Humphries, the deposed Nick Xenophon Team candidate, who described South Australia's renewable energy policy as 'a vanity policy', but Mr Humphries's commonsense position on energy didn't fit in with the Xenophon team's policy; hence he is no more. South Australia is left with not only the Labor Party's policy but also the Nick Xenophon Team's policy as quoted by the Xenophon team's member for Mayo, Ms Sharkie, who rejected her colleague, saying:
Well, I wouldn't call it vanity politics. Myself and my team, Nick, Skye, and Stirling—
I'm assuming that's Nick Xenophon, Skye Kakoschke-Moore and Stirling Griff—
we agree with a 50 per cent renewable energy target.
That means that not only will we have a 50 per cent renewable energy experiment under the Labor Party but, if Nick Xenophon gets his hands on any power in South Australia, it will be continued.
The good news is that the state Liberal team have a plan to deal with the high cost and unreliable power fiasco that has been inflicted on South Australia by Jay Weatherill. The even better news is that Steven Marshall and his shadow energy minister, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, stand ready to work with the federal government to resolve the problem. Instead of the blatant and reckless refusal by the Labor Party to accept that South Australia even has a problem, and more importantly a preparedness to fix it, Steven Marshall and his team are ready to stand up and deal with this problem. Both the federal government and the state Liberal team are focused on keeping the lights on in South Australia and reducing household bills and businesses' energy costs.
In summary, the federal government has put together a suite of measures to assist all Australians with the energy crisis that is before us, and many of these will play out very well in South Australia. The federal government has put their energy policy on the table. In conjunction with the energy cost reduction initiatives of the federal government, Steven Marshall has announced that, if he is elected, his government will implement policies to further reduce household power prices, and they will do so without wasting taxpayers' money on the establishment and operation of government owned permanent standalone gas generators; the South Australian Liberals will instead support the construction of an interconnector with New South Wales to provide South Australia with access to affordable and reliable baseload power. At the same time, we will also provide South Australians with the opportunity to export our excess renewable energy. In addition to that, we are also going to provide a $180 million fund to support home based storage, other initiatives in storage, demand management and grid integration. On 17 March, South Australians have a choice. They can have more expensive and unreliable power at the hands of a Labor government, a Xenophon government or a Labor-Xenophon government, or they can choose a Marshall Liberal government that is ready, willing and able to address this all-important issue.
I thank Senator Bernardi for creating the opportunity for this debate. I look forward to him working with the South Australian Liberal government, should we be lucky enough to be elected by the South Australian public on 17 March, to provide the energy solutions that our home state of South Australia so desperately needs.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (17:05): I'm very pleased to stand here and speak on the matter of public importance, and I'm delighted to follow my South Australian colleague Senator Ruston, who is continuing the tried and true tradition of the federal Liberal Party in South Australia, and that is to blame everybody else. It's fantastic. Nearly half a decade after they were elected, we've got a federal government that have presided over a complete mess in our NEM, our National Electricity Market, because they've been so internally divided. Now they want to blame everybody else for the mess they've created.
Meanwhile in South Australia, which is the state probably most exposed by the Commonwealth's failings, we are actually taking matters into our hands and trying to fix the mess—something Mr Turnbull could never do because of the internal division. So the contrast could not be greater: a government here in Canberra that is paralysed, when it comes to energy, by its own internal ideological differences—and you only have to read the reports over the last years that demonstrate that—that is trying to divert attention from its own failings by attacking a state Labor government that is actually trying to take practical steps to deliver more-affordable and more-reliable power.
Let's get a few facts straight. The Liberals here are now into their fifth year in office. The current Prime Minister is into his third. Under Mr Malcolm Turnbull, what's happened to energy prices? Up, up, up, up. The energy crisis has developed on the Liberals' watch. It is their responsibility. It's developed because they are so bitterly divided when it comes to energy. Mr Turnbull couldn't even get his own party room to agree on an energy policy. They still haven't got an agreement on a policy, but they're blaming everybody else. Instead of getting sensible energy policy, you've got the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia bringing lumps of coal into the House of Representatives and seriously talking up the prospects of spending millions or more—or billions—on nationalising clapped-out, failing, old, coal-fired power stations. Well, that is not an energy policy.
And their record on gas is even worse. We've seen gas prices soar. What have we seen from Mr Turnbull? Talk, talk and more talk. When gas prices kept going up, Mr Turnbull warned those gas companies that, if it didn't stop, well, he'd talk some more. In the meantime, hundreds of jobs at manufacturers like Qenos and Incitec Pivot are left hanging in the balance as they struggle to secure affordable gas supplies, with companies being offered supply at prices almost double what the ACCC says they should be.
Australians know that the handshake agreement between the gas companies and Mr Turnbull just won't deliver. What we actually need is a little less of Malcolm's incessant talking and a little bit more action—a government actually doing something to ensure reliable and affordable gas. If they were serious about doing that, about ensuring an affordable domestic supply of gas, they would have used some export controls to put some teeth into their agreements with the gas companies.
Let's contrast this with the action that the South Australian government has taken. Jay Weatherill and the Labor government are taking real action to ensure we secure reliable and affordable energy for South Australia. They have delivered the world's largest battery in record time. They are investing in state-owned power generation. After the Liberals privatised electricity in South Australia, we're investing in state-owned power generation and a solar thermal plant—actually taking charge of our own energy future. And what do the Liberals want? More reliance on the eastern states.
The South Australian Labor government is helping more households make the transition to solar with battery storage for 50,000 households—interestingly, criticised by the Liberals but actually pretty similar to a plan that Mr Frydenberg came to South Australia to announce, but then he slunk away because nothing really happened. We know that renewables mean cheaper power, and that's why the next step is for 50,000 homes with solar and batteries working together, providing cheaper power and more reliability. Energy prices in South Australia are already coming down, with the independent national regulator predicting a $300-a-year price drop over the next two years, and that's just the beginning.
In contrast, what do the Liberals want to do? They want to scrap our Renewable Energy Target—ideology if you have ever seen it. We heard it again from Senator Ruston today: 'Let's send ourselves backwards.' Former Young Liberal and former senator, Nick Xenophon, thinks wind farms cause brain damage. Let's be clear what this debate is about today. Labor says South Australia should be more self-sufficient and has the best plan for cheaper, cleaner and more reliable power. What's the Liberals' plan? They want to use taxpayers to prop up coal-fired power and make South Australia more reliant on the eastern states. The extent to which they have no idea what they're doing is demonstrated by their much vaunted electricity plan that Steven Marshall launched, where he said, 'There will be a $302 drop in prices,' and then just a couple of days later had to walk away; it might be only $60 or $70 in five years time. He couldn't even get his own plan right, because it's the wrong plan.
The sad truth about the South Australian Liberal Party is that the leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia is not Steven Marshall; it's Mr Christopher Pyne. Steven Marshall is Christopher Pyne's patsy. That's the hard reality. Where he should be championing his state, he ends up being Pyne's patsy, because he owes his job—lock, stock and barrel—to the control that Mr Pyne exercises over the South Australian Liberal Party. We see that time and again: Steven Marshall failing to stand up for South Australia when it comes to the GST, water and securing our energy future. The reality is that he is nothing more than a patsy for Mr Pyne. He would have been in a far better position if he had been prepared to stand up for the people of South Australia and the issues they care about, rather than simply doing what his political masters here in Canberra want. He is a weak Liberal leader. He is controlled by members of the federal Liberal Party, and in particular Mr Christopher Pyne. The problem is that South Australians know it. The game is up. If you want to know why former senator Nick Xenophon is as popular as he is, apart from—I acknowledge, Senator Patrick—the fact he that he is a very good politician and media performer, the reason is that people know Steven Marshall does what Chris Pyne wants, not what's good for South Australia.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:12): Electing a government is a lot like entering into a long-term relationship. With that in mind, and in honour of Valentine's Day, I think the voters of South Australia need to be reminded of the most celebrated romance in Australian history. I'm talking about the famous love affair between Labor and the Greens. I know they deny it and try to hide it, but it seems true love cannot be hidden. I think we can all agree that Labor is so head over heels in love with the Greens that they have changed everything about themselves. It's heartwarming to see someone is prepared to sacrifice for true love.
They've stopped hanging out with their blue-collar mates who worked in the mines and factories and ran the power stations—the same mines, factories and power stations that the Greens got Labor to destroy. Now they have a trendy new haircut and a shiny new Prius, have converted to veganism and moved to Melbourne. I know it's annoying that Labor won't return your phone calls and never has free time to hang out anymore, but that is what happens: people change when they fall in love. Though we might not approve of their love of shutting down mines, power stations and businesses, who are we to stand in the way of true love? I know we might miss them when we are out camping and fishing, but we've all seen their photos on Facebook, and no-one can deny Labor looks very happy with their new-found flame at those poetry slams and protest marches.
I know a lot of Australians feel betrayed, feel like they knew the Labor Party. Some felt like they were going to spend the rest of their lives with the Labor Party. I know Labor promised that they would start a business with you. I know there were grand plans to build mines and dams, but they just found someone better: they found the Greens. It's time to accept that the Labor Party has moved on to greener pastures. Some people might think it was rude of Labor to start a relationship with the Greens when they were already spoken for. But that's what happens: people fall out of love and people move on. So it's time to accept that Labor has moved on. They have moved to Melbourne to start a new life with their true love, the Greens of Batman. The people of Queensland and Tasmania also know of the damage this love affair relationship has done. I hope that South Australia wakes up in the coming election, and all Australians in future elections. Remember Labor in the last election in Queensland—chaos. I can see it. Greens and Labor—chaos.
Senator GICHUHI (South Australia) (17:15): I rise to speak on a matter that is very close to my heart. I arrived in Australia in 1999. I had a resume prepared by an expert writer in Kenya. My resume had details such as next of kin, age, gender and marital status. Under marital status it read 'married with issues'. Clearly, it didn't communicate my skills and capabilities to the Australian labour market. Thankfully, under the federal Liberal government of John Howard and state premier John Olsen, there was a program in South Australia called Interlink. As a new migrant, I was enrolled in this program free of charge and I learned how to do a resume Australian style, how to do an interview with Australian employers and how to communicate my skills, my experience and my capabilities effectively. Needless to say, in four short months I was employed as an auditor in the South Australian Auditor-General's Department, a job I held for the next eight years. It enabled me and my family to settle in this country. This is what Liberal Party policies do best. They create the capacity and opportunity for all Australians to enter the job market and, most importantly, be all that they can be. It is a fundamental core value of the party that everybody deserves an opportunity. I thank my colleague Senator Bernardi for highlighting this important issue, which shows how Liberal Party policies help South Australians not only find a job, not only to grow personally and publicly, but to be all they can be in this country.
As a voter, I believe it is vital we have policies that not only enable us to find jobs but that create jobs through small, medium or even big businesses. That is what the Liberal Party in South Australia can do and would do for all of us. Whether you are looking for a job or for people to fill vacancies that your business has created, the important thing is that their policies and values in place give South Australians the opportunity to choose the path that best works for them. Liberal Party policies in South Australia will deliver significant investment, internships and traineeships, among other opportunities. Both state and federal Liberal governments are committed to providing over $100 million for job creation, which will lead to close to 21,000 additional internships and traineeships. This is part of the government's Skilling Australians Fund, a national initiative for vocational education and training. This is happening through the federal Liberal government's jobactive program, which has placed 5,000 South Australians in the job market. In addition, 3,500 South Australians are participating in other programs. There is another program, ParentsNext, which has trial sites in Playford, Port Adelaide, Port Augusta and Whyalla, where participating parents are given personalised assistance to improve their work readiness and a pathway from welfare.
South Australia was once a jewel in the crown of the nation, known for her ingenuity, courage and the entrepreneurship of her people. She has been suffering for many years, but I have great hope that she will rise again as an ethical and economic powerhouse.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (17:19): I note that Senator Fawcett was supposed to speak. When Senator Gichuhi jumped up, I didn't make a point about that, and I can understand why Senator Fawcett would be very embarrassed to have to talk about the South Australian election and the party that he—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order! Senator Fawcett, I'm hoping this will be a point of order.
Senator Fawcett: Yes, a point of order. As Senator Farrell would well know, the speaking order was changed, and Senator Gichuhi took my place.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's not a point of order. Resume your seat.
Senator FARRELL: Anyway, I thank Senator Bernardi for giving us the opportunity to speak about the leadership of the South Australian Labor government and encourage all South Australians to re-elect it for an historic fifth term. There are very good reasons for doing that, because South Australians have a very clear choice before them in this election. There are three options, really: they can choose a Labor government, focusing on the issues of our state—jobs, health, education and energy; they can choose a failed state Liberal Party that have made a career out of disappointing themselves; or they can choose a Xenophon party made up of people who failed in the failed Liberal Party.
The state Labor government in my home state has constantly and consistently delivered vital projects and necessary reforms to South Australians. A key example of this is the action taken by Premier Weatherill and Treasurer Koutsantonis on energy policy. As the National Energy Market failed under the Liberals, the federal Liberal government simply stood idly by, but the South Australian government took action. They announced a plan and acted to take control of South Australian energy needs.
But you don't have to take my word for that. I'd like to share a few excerpts from the Adelaide Advertiser newspaper in my home state. On 18 December last year, a headline on the Advertiser website informed us 'South Australian electricity bills tipped to drop by $300 over two years'. That article reports:
Expert modelling shows the price drop in SA—7.3 per cent over the next two years—was among the biggest savings in Australia driven by new wind and solar generation.
Then, on 21 December last year, a headline on the Adelaide Advertiser website read '"That's a record": South Australia's Tesla battery responds to coal-fired plant failure'. I've seen these batteries, and I encourage you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to go and have a look. They're terrific batteries. This article went on to say:
The world's largest lithium-ion battery, built by tech billionaire Elon Musk, responded quickly last week when the coal-fired Loy Yang power plant tripped and went offline.
The battery delivered 100 megawatts into the national electricity grid in 140 milliseconds—
yes, 140 milliseconds. An article by The Advertiser's political reporter—a very good reporter, Sheradyn Holderhead—published on 9 January this year described the success of the South Australian Labor government's energy policies. That article was titled 'South Australia exporting power to Victoria as eastern state imports tumble tenfold'. I'll share the opening couple of paragraphs with the Senate:
SOUTH Australia has shut off on its reliance on Victoria to keep the lights on and has consistently been exporting power to the east coast, new figures reveal.
Data from the national grid operator shows that every week since July, SA has exported more energy than it has brought in from interstate.
Not only has SA exported more electricity but the total amount of power being brought in from the east has dwindled and was now 10 times less than this time last year.
I know you look amazed, Mr Acting Deputy President. Just to avoid being too parochial in the promotion of The Advertiser, here's a headline from The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday: 'AGL to spend nearly $1bn on wind farms'. In that article we're told:
AGL will spend about $900 million to buy wind farms as part of a plan to replace the power lost when it closes the controversial Liddell coal-fired power plant.
It goes on to say that AGL:
… is turning to a mix of different sources—including wind and solar—as it brings more renewable energy on board.
So you see, Mr Acting Deputy President, senators need not take it from me and my colleagues on this side of the chamber or from our Labor colleagues in South Australia. The fourth estate—that great bastion of our democracy that we collectively refer to as the news media—required as it is to report in an accurate, fair, and balanced fashion, has done what the people opposite refuse to do and has told the truth. The truth is that the South Australian Labor government energy policies are providing reliable and affordable electricity not just for my home state but now for Victoria.
On a more local note, I'd like to advise the Senate about the excellent work being done on the ground by hardworking candidates and members across my home state. Starting in the electorate of Newland—a seat in Adelaide's north-eastern suburbs—local campaign extraordinaire Tom Kenyon is pounding the pavement and mustering the community behind him, even as a redistribution put his seat in the Liberal column. In Adelaide's south the member for Elder, Annabel Digance, and our candidate for Badcoe, Jayne Stinson—a terrific former news reporter—are fighting to passionately represent locals in two tough contests.
Senator Birmingham: What about the other faction?
Senator Fifield: What about the SDA?
Senator FARRELL: We don't have factions in the Labor Party, in South Australia. In Croydon, the rising star, Pete Malinauskas, is campaigning his heart out and filling the huge shoes left by the outgoing member and speaker, Michael Atkinson. In Adelaide, Labor's Joe Chapley is taking the fight to the local Liberal Party members who are foolishly opposed to everything from the tram extensions to the new hospital.
Senator Birmingham: She changed factions. She swapped.
Senator FARRELL: I know you don't like what I'm saying. I know you don't like the truth, but that is the truth. In Adelaide's northern and western suburbs, Labor candidates and ministers alike, such as Michael Brown, Stephen Mulligan and Tom Koutsantonis, are doing excellent jobs representing Labor values across our communities. I know you'd like to shut me up, and now you have to.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:27): I'm pleased to speak to today's matter of public importance. I don't think anyone would doubt that the March 17 election is critical for our state. It's vitally important that we turn a corner and move away from the dismal path our state has been on for the last 25 years. It has been a path of economic stagnation, industrial retrenchment, high unemployment and relative population decline. While much of the rest of Australia has thrived, South Australia has struggled, and so much talent—particularly young talent—is being forced to seek opportunities elsewhere. We've become regarded with derision by the national, political and economic commentators. That's not the fault of South Australians. We have an educated and skilled workforce. We have reservoirs of technological expertise. We have excellent universities. We have a diverse and resilient mining sector with significant mineral deposits. We have world-class natural energy resources. Why then has South Australia struggled for so long? The short answer is the absolute failure of our state's political leaders and parties. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee of SA Labor and Liberal have long been much more interested in fighting about which side gets their snout in the trough, rather than what's best for our state.
The Labor government is tired, lacking in vision and more interested in who is in and out amongst its own factions than in having a good state. There has been a failure in the delivery of the most basic of services, but the Liberal alternative doesn't promise anything better. Under Steven Marshall, the state Liberals seem to be driven more by a sense of entitlement that they are overdue for their turn in office, rather than any vision for South Australia.
As SA-BEST leader, former Senator Xenophon, on more than one occasion, has said:
For too long, voters have had an awful choice between a government that deserves to lose and an opposition that doesn't deserve to win.
We don't know what the outcome of the 17 March poll will be; most of the experts are perplexed. SA-BEST is hopeful that we will secure seats in the house of assembly, and, hopefully, the balance of power. The polls suggest that this is a real possibility. Time will tell. If we do enjoy a measure of success, SA-BEST will seek to make parliament work better and to deliver better outcomes for the people of South Australia. Parliamentary reform and big improvements to government transparency and accountability are key SA-BEST priorities. We need a root and branch review of SA's failed health system conducted by a royal commission over the next year.
Both Labor and Liberal have announced elaborate schemes with promises of more reliable and cheaper power. But who can hold them to account? That's where SA-BEST comes into the equation. We're aiming to win the balance of power, not to form government. We want our influence from the sensible centre of politics to drive positive reforms on how we are governed, how essential services are delivered more effectively and how the state's problems are tackled. SA-BEST will use that balance of power position to hold a Liberal or Labor state government to account on the promises they make. If the next SA government doesn't deliver, they could find themselves looking for a job.
Debate interrupted.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (17:30): Order! Before I call Senator Molan, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech and, therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. Senator Molan.
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (17:31): Mr President, thank you very much. Can I begin by saying that there's probably no-one in this entire chamber this evening who is listening to this who is more surprised than I am that I'm giving a first speech in the Australian Senate. The joke relating to a certain Australian skater has been done to death by some of my colleagues; it's been thrown at me from across the floor, but I do recognise a parallel. I listened to Senator Steele-John give his first speech a little while ago. He commented that he was the youngest appointed to this chamber. I am definitely not competing with him on that issue! I'm proud to be a member of the fastest growing demographic in this country.
I thought I would use this speech to introduce myself to the Senate. What happened last week makes that somewhat redundant as my background, character and motives have been stated, examined and questioned, both inside this chamber and in public, so I hope just to put certain things into context. Before I proceed, I would very much like to thank the coalition leadership team in the Senate for the support and comradeship they provided to me over the last week—especially Senator Marise Payne, the Minister for Defence, who is overseas at the moment, who defended me so passionately. In his valedictory speech, George Brandis claimed that there is a unique feeling of comradeship within the coalition in the Senate—indeed there is and I have certainly felt it. I particularly extend my appreciation to those that defended me in the other place and especially to the Prime Minister. My first week in this place certainly presented me with a reminder of the importance of ensuring that I cannot be misrepresented and that my message is always clear, as is my absolute commitment to the values of an inclusive and diverse Australian society.
I will never take for granted the privilege to speak in a democratic forum such as this. Democracy, in both concept and practice, has been a significant part of my career and my life, perhaps more so than for many Australians. As a soldier, amazingly enough I have accompanied five countries down their road to democracy. I spent 2½ half years maintaining security and backing up the police in Papua New Guinea at the start of PNG's democracy. I spent five years in two postings as a diplomat—on Jakarta's streets during the fall of Suharto and the establishment of democratic government in Indonesia; and with four of my embassy Defence staff in East Timor, unarmed, evacuating thousands in the weeks before Peter Cosgrove and his troops arrived, including negotiating with armed militia for the life of Bishop Belo. I commanded the force evacuating Australian citizens from the Solomon Islands, a young nation that had stumbled in its democratic progress. Finally, I spent a year as chief of operations in the senior headquarters of the coalition forces in Iraq over the second year of the Iraq war helping coordinate an allied army growing to 300,000 in vicious daily combat at the cost of 900 of our US soldiers' lives against those who would deny any form of democracy to Iraqis or to anyone else. These experiences have given me an innate respect for democracy and a particular realisation of what it may mean to be an Australian senator. They also explain my determined approach to assist real democratic reform within the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party.
My parents, Andy and Noni, were at least third-generation Australians, with our children the fourth generation. Working-class Australians, they gained a middle-class lifestyle after World War II via hard work and a realisation, especially on my mother's part, that education for their six children was the way to success in life. Our family story is not an uncommon Australian success story. It is also not a story that does or should only apply to the past. Anne and I have four adult children, all of whom have worked and studied hard in the best Australian tradition to receive the benefits available in this magnificent country. Of significance, two of them this year have achieved homeownership, one in rural Victoria and one even in Sydney, and a third is on the cusp of doing so in Melbourne.
Although I retired from the Army nine years ago, my 40 years as a soldier taught me a lot that seems applicable to parliamentary and wider social life. First, leadership is everything. Whenever we wanted to achieve real effects, even in this technology dominated world, we still turned to the best person. As chief of operations in Iraq, I was at the centre of the most technically advanced headquarters in the history of war, yet we consistently turned to people as people when we wanted to get things done. Human leadership in this age of technology has never been more important, be it in the military or in society.
Second, Australia brings its unique culture into its military. Blind obedience to orders or authority does not make good soldiers; nor does it make good citizens. We encourage our diggers to question every order for as long as possible because all of us are a lot smarter than any one of us. But, when the final decision is made by the boss, we expect support for that decision until the situation changes significantly. This ethos and duty, this understanding of loyalty and teamwork in a questioning environment, is something that I intend to personally carry into this house. I need to say that the only order I ever obeyed without question was 'Duck!'
Third, as a leader, once you find someone who knows what they are doing, get out of the way. This could be the military equivalent of the age-old principle of subsidiarity—only ever do what you do well—a principle of value in any organisation and one which reflects the Liberal principles of small and appropriate government to maximise freedom of the individual.
Fourth, stereotypes are invariably wrong. If you think that all a senior military leader has to do is give an order and everyone obeys, you have never had the joy of running a big military or interagency organisation. Modern military organisations that I was connected with were so diverse that most people did not have to acknowledge my authority over them. In Iraq, for example, subordinates had to be convinced that my plan was good, that my directions gave them a fair chance of not being killed, or that I was not directing them to go outside their remit or outside my authority. Consultation, influence and persuasion are required perhaps more in modern militaries because the consequences of failure are immediate: you can, too often, count the bodies.
Operation Sovereign Borders was my introduction to the coalition, and I must say I was mightily impressed. Scott Morrison was generous enough to call me the co-author of our effective border protection controls. To be a co-author is a great honour because our policy enabled one of the most successful and most humane approaches to a complex strategic law enforcement and humanitarian problem. With the focus now on winding down offshore centres on Manus and Nauru, many forget previous failed policies and the need to effectively and coherently manage them. If I am indeed a co-author, I am one of at least four co-authors, some of whom are present here today. Unless we're blinded by ideology, there are lessons in that policy for all of us. What really made Operation Sovereign Borders work was simply leadership and management 101—nothing more, nothing magical, nothing too complex. Australia had to consistently demonstrate national resolve in facing down the people smugglers and those in foreign bureaucracies and elsewhere that were corruptly furthering their efforts. Across all levels involved, this national will was, and remains, encapsulated in that three world goal: stop the boats. Those who criticised it as a three-word slogan missed the whole point, and many miss it to this day.
We turned that policy into a strategy which showed how the policy would be achieved. Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and I launched it in the media and the PMO turned it into a three-document election policy. That was really the easy part. Compared to having an effect in the real world of real people, policy is pretty easy. Policy is never an end in itself. The hard work is always implementation. Operation Sovereign Borders has been so successful because of the alignment which existed from the Prime Minister all the way down to the implementers, including the hands-on management by ministers. It dramatically restored my faith in how effective Australian governments could be. It remains effective to this very day. I am immensely proud of the team that put this together and the results it achieved—the lives it saved and the criminal activity it disrupted—and I am particularly proud of the government behind it all to this very day.
It's only fair to this house that I state what I hope to focus on as a senator for New South Wales. I will put the people of New South Wales and Australia first, to the best of my ability, in everything this house asks me to consider. I admit to still being in the learning phase of how I might do that, but that is the objective. I am very sensitive to the overwhelming support I have received from good Libs all over Australia, particularly those who supported me during my preselection in 2016—and the 10,100 people who amazingly voted for me below the line at No. 7 during the double-dissolution election—the superb, extraordinary democratic reformers in New South Wales. Also those who have wished me well I would like to thank as a senator, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who was among the first to ring when there was an indication that my appointment might happen. Last week I received the most extraordinary support from a very wide cross-section of our society, either expressed directly to me, through my office or through the media—a level of support that I found absolutely humbling.
Whatever I find myself doing in this great institution, I will work for it to be ethical. Ethics is about consistently doing the right thing, about being secretly beholden to no-one, and, in a political and parliamentary sense, about working for the voters who elected us. In terms of the Liberal Party, it means representing the members of my party and voters rather than disguised narrow factional interests. I am of no faction and beholden to no individual or group. I am a New South Wales Liberal, and that is where my loyalty lies. Those journos that call me a member of the New South Wales hard Right have never met a member of the New South Wales hard Right. My conclusion is that the behaviour of such factions—Left, Centre or Right—is rarely in the interests of the party, its members or those who might consider voting for a right-of-centre party. I stand beside Walter Villatora, Tony Abbott, Angus Taylor and many other New South Wales Libs whilst still recognising the sterling qualities of those who opposed us.
Given my career expertise defence and wider national security are, of course, big issues for me. I always and publically acknowledge that the 2016 Defence white paper—particularly the accompanying funding, industry and technology links, the resultant force structure and, most recently, the defence export policy—is the best that Australia has had since the first defence white paper back in 1976. This is to the great credit of our coalition prime ministers and defence and defence industry ministers.
I also think that the Australian Defence Force itself is better than I have seen it since the end of the Vietnam War. That's a coalition achievement of the Howard, Abbott and Turnbull governments, and of defence leaders, and one achieved despite the extraordinary neglect of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd period. But I look around the world at the impact of Russia, Iran, China, North Korea and Islamist extremism—what Americans call 'four nations and an ideology'—on the liberal world order, and particularly on strategic uncertainty and growing instability in our region.
I look at the relative decline of US military power from 16 years of war, eight years of President Obama and seven years of crippling sequestration. I have failed to see for many years, despite any special relationships with any of its allies, how the US can come to the aid of all or even most of its allies in any extreme situation. The US government and military now acknowledge this in their desire to refinance their military. Many US allies around the world, from the Baltic to the Sea of Japan, seem to have retreated into complacent dependency, based on the myth of infinite US power and resolve as a reason for underinvesting in their own defence self-reliance, and this affects all of us. The centre pole of Australia's defence policy tent, the US, may no longer stand as straight or as tall as we hoped.
My view is that we need to increase our self-reliance to manage strategic uncertainty through increased readiness, preparedness and all-round adaptability. Once before, in the decades up to 1941, Australia blindly put its security in the hands of an old friend, with a resulting situation that almost did not end well for us. As the foreign affairs white paper pointed out, an ascendant power, China, is challenging a status quo power, the US, in our region. War with China or involving China is not inevitable, and I've said this many, many times. We should welcome China's emergence as a world power, if for no other reason than it has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but we, Australia, should welcome China from a position of strength. I'm reminded by commentators that since the 1500s a status quo power has been overtaken by a rising power some 16 times, and war has resulted in 12 of those occasions. Twelve of 16 are not good odds and require prudent policy.
I have no expectations that governments immediately spend one more dollar on defence, but for years I've advocated that we must be more open about the strategic risks that are being taken in the name of the Australian people. We should all know how much defence we get for what we spend, but we should also know how much risk we take for the money we do not spend. I understand that we ask government to take risks in every single policy area. Defence is only different in that it's a classic public good: unlike many areas, such as health and education, the public cannot buy more defence from another source if they want less risk.
Defence is also the only major area of government that is wholly a federal government responsibility. But as I've written, as early as 2012, defence policies of all parties in all governments for decades have merely been a list of inputs to Defence—that is, ships, planes, tanks, people and dollars—whereas the most important part of any defence policy is the output: how Australia is going to deter the next war by being able to win it. Of course this requires governments to state what they consider the next war is going to be, and so define an output oriented defence policy. I reject the views of commentators and academics that it's too hard to determine this output. Such a specification of the next war can be done in a generic sense, and it must be done or the necessary logic in our defence policy is totally absent. The US and the UK did it for years in terms of the kinds of wars they could win, and only abandoned it when it became politically too sensitive because of the self-induced defence shortfalls we see in those nations today.
I totally reject that there is a security issue in telling the Australian public and the world how we, the government, intend to win the next war in a generic sense. The world needs to know this, because that is the essence of deterrence, and we all need to know it, because how else can the government know if it is succeeding in defence or, more importantly, how can the voters ever judge how well a government is meeting its defence responsibility?
For obvious reasons, control of our borders and immigration is important to me, as it is to most Australians. We now effectively control our borders in a way that few now trust the opposition to do. However, I am concerned that the level of legal migration now that we control our borders is in excess of the capacity of our cities to absorb, both culturally and in terms of infrastructure. We are approaching limits on this, if we have not already exceeded them. I don't have the answers, but I certainly have the concerns.
As a new New South Wales senator, New South Wales issues will be my priority. The first person that I called once I was confirmed was the Premier of New South Wales, the leader of the best state government in this country. This may be quaint to some, but I had no need, obligation or desire to call a faction leader. I will work tirelessly for the re-election of the coalition at the federal level, as I did during the double-D election, during the Bennelong by-election and at other elections, because a right-of-centre coalition government, even if we may have faults, will benefit the people of Australia more than anything else, and we are short of volunteering and donating party members. My wariness of a Labor-Greens government is due to the impact such a government would have on national defence, on our borders, on an already stretched deficit and on cultural issues, as we have all seen before.
My last focus is the catch-all of what I call national resilience. This is what we may have taken for granted in past years: the strength of our economy, community confidence in our culture, and the integrity and influence of our institutions. Of course, Australia has changed and will continue to change. As a Liberal from a conservative base, I'm not afraid of change. I'm a staunch conservative on international affairs, because the world out there is confused, disrupted and replete with nationalism, and it's getting a touch of militarism. The big bad world could not care less what Australia has achieved internally. Ironically, they may even see it as weakness. However, on every social issue that comes before this house, I will not be stereotyped and I will make up my mind issue by issue. Two of those issues are the attention we pay to the fastest growing demographic in this nation—people of my age—and the support we give to Defence Force veterans, many of whom are here today.
Someone once said that, if opponents don't speak against you, you probably are not standing up for enough. Anyone who's googled me—and that seems to be most of the Western world and all the media in the last week or so—knows that various opponents regularly speak against me because I have publicly voiced my views on issues. I was targeted because I criticised the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government over its neglect of its national defence responsibilities. Some single-issue polemicists wanted to take me to the International Criminal Court years ago as a supposed war criminal because I fought in Iraq, and that has echoed more recently. Those who failed to stop the boats or said it could not be done attacked me, and of course they attacked many others, because we did it. I was publicly attacked by apologists at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas because I was a board director, with a military background, of the then brilliant St James Ethics Centre. And, most recently, I was abused as a murderer at a function held in Redfern. If opponents don't speak against you, you are probably not standing up for enough.
One of my early US bosses in Iraq used to say a prayer at the start of our daily battle update. That prayer was Psalm 144 and is a particularly muscular part of Christianity. It's a good prayer for going into battle in Iraq or for use in general everyday life. I used it in the eulogy I was honoured to give for Captain Bryce Duffy, killed in 2011 in Afghanistan—may he rest in peace. And we are honoured to have Bryce's parents in the gallery today, Kim and Kerry Duffy. We are honoured to have you present with us today. Many of us may understand their loss, but none of us can ever fully repay them. Psalm 144 goes:
Praise be to the Lord my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle.
He is my loving God and my fortress,
my stronghold and my deliverer,
my shield, in whom I take refuge …
My view of our Judaeo-Christian culture is not one of victimhood or persecution. Instead, it's one that acknowledges centuries of success in overcoming challenges to produce the nation that is modern Australia and that will enable us to face similar challenges in the future. I acknowledge that our community may not yet have reached perfection, but we remain a lot closer than most nations or institutions, particularly those prone to criticising us. We are challenged almost daily as to our culture, but I have confidence in what we have and what we are. Being a Liberal never stops me from being progressive, the way Menzies thought of Liberals and the way John Howard delivered. If we know what is valuable in our magnificent society then we know what to defend from the assaults of the pessimists and the ideologues. All it takes is the kind of confidence embodied in Psalm 144.
I came here in such strange circumstances that my gratitude to others, I suspect, is different from most senators. I don't think it appropriate to thank the High Court, but in the spirit of coalition unity I would like to mention Fiona Nash and to acknowledge Hollie Hughes. We are indeed in strange times.
Some of my family, close and extended, are in the gallery, and of course I thank them, and they know my gratitude to them. My wife, Anne, is there, as are two of our adult children, Erin and Felicity, with our other children, Michael and Sarah, unable to be with us.
I mention many of the national leaders that I have had contact with over the years: John Howard, Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, Angus Taylor, Connie Fierravanti-Wells and especially Stuart Robert, who has been a particular friend, plus, of course, the two senators who escorted me into the Senate last week, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett. I note my deep respect for one in particular, Scott Morrison. Because I've worked so closely with him, I recognise his particular leadership and competence. As Treasurer, he must now look back on the border protection era as halcyon days.
But, of course, we are not short of outstanding parliamentarians in the Liberal Party. I owe much to the stimulation I've received over the years from Peter Jennings, Steven Loosley, Simon Longstaff and Allan Behm. For special reasons, I would like to thank one comrade who often made me look good, and that's Ken Brownrigg. I have no election staff or campaign director to thank, but the closest is Scott Briggs who advised me years ago to have a go.
Let me finish with reference to the most important determinant of what I am, the Australian military. If I had a military mentor over the years, it is retired Lieutenant General Des Mueller, who launched the book that I wrote back in 2008, and I thank him for 25 years of wise counsel. Des was and is a brilliant blend of Sparta and Athens. My boss in Iraq was US General George Casey, who commanded the war in Iraq for three long years while I ran it for him for only the first of those years.
Too many to name are the Australian soldiers of all ranks who've worked for me, with me or above me over 40 years, because I've learnt so much from them while pretending to know much more than I ever actually did. Many of them have contacted me in the past week to express their support for me when the place of men and women in uniform in our society was challenged.
Napoleon said: if you want to learn a nation's interests, go to the graves of its soldiers. Many Australian dead have been brought back to Australia, but many still lie close to where they fell. Australia's interests lie across the face of this earth. We are an international nation with worldwide interests. I've visited many battlefields and played cameo parts on some. What strikes me is the consistent performance of Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen over more than 100 years and around the world. Today's soldiers are as good as, if not better than, any we have sent overseas, and much of that is due to our Australian culture and the leadership, training and equipment that accompany them. To me, they represent everything that is good about Australia because they are Australian. I dedicate my efforts in this house to them. Thank you.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1)
Disallowance
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (18:03): I move:
That the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1), made under the Water Act 2007, be disallowed.
This motion is very important. As a South Australian senator it is increasingly important to my home state of SA and, of course, it is important to the health of the entire Murray-Darling Basin system. After decades of debate on how we share the water throughout the Murray-Darling Basin in a way that would be fair and in a way that would keep the river alive, the Commonwealth and the various states came up with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan five years ago. The nexus of that plan was that too much water was being taken out of the river and the river just simply wouldn't survive unless something was corrected.
Five years on we've seen scandal after scandal, allegations of corruption and water being stolen from the environment—siphoned off by big corporate irrigators, only to simply feather their own nests. Yet hundreds of millions, in fact billions, of dollars in taxpayers' money has been spent buying water that is meant to be for the environment, only to then have no idea—as we've seen from leaked correspondence from the Environmental Water Holder and as confirmed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority themselves—how much water there actually is for the river and for the environment.
There are several investigations underway into a number of these allegations of theft and corruption. We have the issues in relation to Norman Farming. The Queensland senior crimes unit is investigating Norman Farming—which, I might point out, is run by a man related by marriage to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud. The minister's own relative by marriage is being investigated on issues of water theft and corruption. We have investigations underway in Victoria. We have a royal commission into water theft in South Australia. We know that there are New South Wales water bureaucrats being hauled into the Independent Commission Against Corruption because of allegations of water theft and mismanagement.
Despite all of this, we have a regulation before us in this place that suggests the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be amended to take more water out of the river, to take more water off the environment and to hand it to big corporate irrigators upstream. It is rewarding bad behaviour. That is why today's vote is very, very important. Amongst this cesspool of water theft, corruption and mismanagement, why on earth would this parliament sign off on giving more water to the people who have behaved badly and less water to the river that desperately needs it?
I just want to point out that many people may think that in fact this Northern Basin Review and its results were actually written into the Basin Plan and that, as such, that voting on this disallowance motion is either voting for the plan or not. I want to be very clear: that is not the case here. What the plan allows for is a review, but it is up to the Senate to scrutinise that to ensure it is robust and appropriate. In the environment of all the allegations of corruption, water theft and a lack of credible data or reliance on science, it is right for this Senate to say, 'No, we're not going to take an extra 70 billion litres of water out of the river and off the environment to reward bad behaviour.' In fact what is allowed for in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a review, but there is no insistence that the water going to the environment should be increased or indeed decreased. You'd have to have the evidence on the table for that argument.
Of course, we've seen from many experts who have looked at the detail of the Northern Basin Review that that evidence just isn't there and that the assumptions that have underpinned this regulation are inherently flawed. For example, the modelling assumes compliance. We've seen over and over again that there is no compliance throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. There is no compliance that has been able to stop the theft of billions of litres of water that was meant to be for the environment, paid for by the Australian taxpayer, that is now being siphoned off into dams by greedy, big corporate irrigators in upstream states. In fact, the Ken Matthews review highlights clearly that compliance is lacking and insufficient. Yet that is one of the key assumptions that this regulation put forward by the government is based on, so it is already flawed from the beginning.
The MDBA have said themselves that compliance isn't good enough. We know that the environmental flows downstream must be coordinated, and there is no way that that can be measured properly by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority at this point. Of course, the lack of consultation in relation to this regulation is astounding too. The communities that are inherently going to be affected by this have cried foul and that this government and the process of this were corrupted from the beginning. The trust in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is wafer thin because people can see for themselves the mess that has been created by big corporate irrigators who have been taking too much water, getting too greedy and having a blind eye turned to them by the water minister—particularly the former water minister, Minister Joyce, who perhaps, if he'd spent a bit more time focused on his day job, would have known that this was going on.
But let's be clear: the Nationals from the beginning have not ever supported the Basin Plan to a point that would ensure the environment got its fair share. We know that right from the beginning the National Party criticised, didn't think the environment deserved as much, didn't care about downstream states and always tried to undermine this process. Of course it was the former water minister, Barnaby Joyce, who said that it was all a Greenie conspiracy that there were allegations of water theft and irrigators downstream crying poor and saying that the water was being ripped off by their big corporate neighbours. That doesn't sound like a Greenie conspiracy to me. It sounds like community members sick and tired of being ripped off by big players. Of course, the former water minister, Barnaby Joyce, boasted that, because the Nationals had the water portfolio, he would do his job to keep as much water for big irrigators as he could. This regulation that is on the table and that we are voting on here today is proof of that.
We know that there are significant problems with the way water is being managed throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. We know that billions and billions of dollars have been spent, and no-one can tell us where the water is and where the money went. We need an independent audit before we start playing with the rules. Voting down this regulation by voting for this disallowance motion will give the Murray-Darling Basin Plan the chance to be fixed, the chance to have integrity so desperately needed reinjected into the process and the chance to ensure that the river, the environment and those communities that rely on a healthy Murray-Darling won't simply be left high and dry.
There are parts of surface water that simply aren't metered at all. I must say, as a South Australian, that I'm very proud of how South Australia manages the water that comes over the border into our state. South Australians overwhelmingly are doing the right thing. Among the states, South Australia has the highest meter rating, with 96 per cent of all take from the river being metered. Meanwhile, as the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's own water compliance review found, in the northern basin it's as low as 25 per cent. That means 75 per cent of surface water diversions are not metered at all. We've got no idea, but what we do know, because communities are starting to cry foul, is that big corporate irrigators got too greedy. They got too ahead of themselves digging trenches, siphoning off water, pocketing the taxpayers' money and hoping no-one would notice. Well, we have noticed. We've noticed right throughout the basin, particularly down in South Australia, and we're not happy about it.
This instrument cannot go ahead if we want a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is actually going to work for the river and the communities that rely on it. We should not be rewarding bad behaviour. Big corporate irrigators are ripping off the river and ripping off the taxpayer, and all this instrument does is reward them. The Senate should vote for this disallowance motion, send it back to the government and say: until you clean up this mess, there is no way we're going to start to take more water off the river just to give it to those who have already been too greedy by far.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (18:15): I rise to speak on behalf of the Labor Party on this disallowance motion and make clear that Labor will be voting to disallow this instrument. We do so because we support the plan; in fact, we're the party that delivered the plan. It was Labor that delivered the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in government and it is Labor that will fight today to save that plan—the whole plan, the entire plan—for all Australians.
It's useful, I think, to have a little bit of history when it comes to the plan, because it was a long time in the making, in many ways a century in the making. It was agreed only after 11 weeks of negotiations by governments right across the basin, and it was the first time that all basin jurisdictions had come together and agreed to manage the basin coherently.
I went back and looked at the Advertiser articles from that time—written, actually, by the much loved Greg Kelton—and the paper remarked at the time:
Getting all the signatories to agree to the 47 points in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Commonwealth and the states was, according to one source, "taxing".
I was the water minister in that room, in that COAG discussion with former Prime Minister Rudd, and together we brokered that deal, and I can tell you that 'taxing' doesn't even begin to describe what we had to go through to get all the states, as well as the Commonwealth, on board. But we did it; we did it as a Labor government with the support of the states.
I would make this point, notwithstanding that very impassioned speech by Senator Hanson-Young: the one party that has not supported the plan, and did not support it when we implemented it in government, is the Greens. They didn't support the plan at the time and, I have to say on this, have been happy to grandstand but have never delivered a single drop to the River Murray. When Senator Hanson-Young goes out in the media and calls on me and other Labor Party senators to stand firm on the River Murray, I would remind people listening that the Greens didn't support the plan and they've never delivered a single drop of water. They continue to lecture me and others in this place about the need to enforce a plan they have never supported. I tell you who did deliver the water, and that is the Labor government. I am proud that as water minister in that government between 2007 and 2010 I secured almost a thousand gigalitres of water for the river, something for which I have been criticised, to this day, by the National Party and various irrigation communities, perhaps even by you, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams—as you're entitled to do, but I do make that point. It was something that was hard fought and remains hard fought.
I'm also proud to be part of Labor's ongoing fight to ensure this plan is delivered on time and in full. We will not stand by and see the plan wrecked after a Labor government delivered a historic agreement, at the Council of Australian Governments, that for the first time in a century ensured all the jurisdictions along the Murray-Darling Basin were directed to one end—that is, the health of the basin. I am not going to stand by and see a plan that was delivered under legislation that a Labor government delivered wrecked by this government.
Let's understand why the plan is at risk. The plan is at risk because Mr Turnbull handed the National Party the water portfolio. He did so because, in order to secure his own job, he needed to keep Mr Joyce and his colleagues happy with a plan they did not support. It is the years of backsliding under this government, and particularly under the Deputy Prime Minister, that have brought us to this point, where this Senate is forced to disallow the instrument on the table. This was no accident. Let's remember that it is Mr Joyce who said that the plan didn't have a hope in Hades of being delivered. It is Mr Joyce who said that South Australians should move where the water is. You can't deliver half a plan, and that is fact.
We have had extraordinarily serious allegations of water theft and corruption in the northern basin. They confirm South Australians' worst fears. Yet Mr Joyce's response made it clear he had no intention of doing anything about those allegations. You know what he said? He said it's overwhelmingly an issue for New South Wales. As my friend and colleague Tony Burke pointed out:
The problem for 100 years was that the Murray-Darling Basin was treated as a state issue rather than as a complete river system. What Barnaby Joyce has said today effectively unwinds the entire reason for Murray-Darling reform in the first place.
Even worse, when Mr Joyce thought the media weren't listening, he made his contempt for the plan crystal clear. Out of his own mouth he told irrigators in Shepparton that the Four Corners expose of water theft was a plot to steal their water:
We have taken water, put it back into agriculture, so we could look after you and make sure we don't have the greenies running the show … Four Corners, you know what that's all about? It's about them trying to take more water off you …
These are incredibly serious allegations, with credible evidence of theft and corruption, and he says it's about trying to take the water off irrigators. That's the federal minister responsible for water publicly condoning water theft, for which he is responsible, and making it very clear he had absolutely no intention of backing the plan he was required by law to enforce. He was happy for the water to be diverted and to see the plan wrecked. When we are followed in this debate and in the media by Senators Birmingham, Ruston and others, who I'm sure have a slightly different view to Mr Joyce, let's remember that the people who put the plan at risk are the National Party and the people who put the National Party in charge of the plan are the Liberal Party.
Frankly, Mr Joyce's performance is simply not good enough for all of those whose lives and livelihoods depend upon the health of the Murray-Darling. The person who should shoulder most of the blame for this is Prime Minister Turnbull, because he allowed Mr Joyce to take control of water, knowing full well it was his intention to wreck the plan by walking away from the commitment to deliver the full 450 gigalitres to South Australia. We need to restore confidence in the plan, and that means ensuring what this government promised and committed to is upheld—that is, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan delivered on time and in full—and that the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment will be delivered.
The South Australian government, led by Jay Weatherill, has fought hard for that. It is a key part of the plan. We need to ensure that environmental water, paid for by taxpayers, is not simply diverted to irrigation dams. Until we can guarantee that water purchased by taxpayers gets to the parts of the river where it is needed, it is difficult for us to support the northern basin proposal. Until this government demonstrates it is serious about tackling the allegations of theft and corruption in the basin, we are not in a position to support the northern basin proposal. Let's remember that Labor put this plan in place, fought for additional water for the environment and put money on the table to make it happen. We need the plan to be delivered in full. As Mr Burke has said:
Now, you can't have a situation where the Australian taxpayer is paying for environmental water and environmental watering events being organised and that exact water is being pumped straight back into dams.
We want to make sure that the review is done comprehensively and that the rules that have created significant problems for the integrity of this whole system are dealt with at the same time.
I'm pleased to say that Labor has been in discussions with the new minister for water to try to resolve these issues. We acknowledge the challenges he faces in cleaning up the mess that has been left by the Deputy Prime Minister, and we are pleased that there are signs that this minister, unlike Mr Joyce, does appear to be interested in dealing with these issues, including the issue of water theft. But Labor cannot today say those issues have been resolved. They have not, and time has run out.
We have said the whole way through we cannot allow a reduction in the volume while it is still possible for environmental water to be pumped back into irrigation. We want the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to survive; it is the plan we delivered in government. But we cannot agree today to reducing the volume of water without the proper assurances that the basin will remain healthy and that work is delivered that addresses serious concerns around compliance. These concerns are not just ours and they continue to be aired, whether it's on Four Corners or, I think last night, on 7.30, along with other information that is put into the public arena by people who live in the basin.
We are prepared to work constructively with the government and the authority—the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—to deliver a genuine outcome. I hope this plan doesn't fall apart—we worked very hard on it for many years—but if it does, I'll tell you where the responsibility would lie: the responsibility would lie with the government that has, for the past four years, allowed the Deputy Prime Minister to wreck it for partisan interest at odds with the needs of the river and the needs of the overwhelming majority of the people who rely on the river.
This isn't just about South Australia or Queensland or Victoria or New South Wales; it is about whether our greatest river system has a future. And it is about whether there is a Commonwealth government that is prepared to act in the interests of all Australians to safeguard that river system for all, for now and for the years ahead.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (18:26): I come to this debate relatively late in the piece. My interest in the health and wellbeing of the Murray-Darling Basin system was piqued by the Four Corners report into the allegations of theft and corruption upstream. That's why I joined with most of my South Australian colleagues to say there needed to be a royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin allegations and the theft.
In not knowing what I don't know, I've been open to all sorts of representations. I have to say my judgement has been clouded by the lack of disclosure in some instances, the wilful misrepresentation of particular points of view by those with vested interests. I've tried to balance those against those whom I respect and have judgement for. I do want to acknowledge that Senator Ruston—the second time today I've damned Senator Ruston with faint praise—has tried to be a very straight player in this, and I do accept that what she has told me has been accurate and said in very good faith. But I still labour over this decision. I labour over it because I'm deeply concerned about the long-term wellbeing and health of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
But this is tempered by the fact that I don't like being bullied by people who I think have essentially been crooked in this. For the New South Wales government to say the entire Basin Plan is at risk over 70 gigalitres of water, when they are essentially on the hook for undermining the entire effort—turning a blind eye to it and, I would say, blatant, outright corruption—is appalling. And if bullying or threatening these sorts of tactics are the ways they want to get a resolution, they should think again because they don't have any credibility in this space.
I also happen to agree with Senator Wong about the problems with the Deputy Prime Minister being in charge of the water portfolio. I think there was enormous compromise there. I respect the fact that many people say the new minister is committed. I've had meetings with him, and he's been committed to this program. But my confidence in the new minister was undermined when, shamefully, he decided to put out a press release calling upon a party member of mine, who happens to be in Queensland, to 'stand up for Queensland'. A member of a political party has been told to stand up against this South Australian-centric politician who's here representing the interests of the state and trying to balance it across the whole thing. And the minister said, 'The people in Queensland would be worse off as a result of this disallowance today.'
Where it falls on shamefully hollow ground is the fact that the minister himself is related to one of the people in Queensland who have been accused of rorting the water systems themselves. They've been raided. It doesn't matter whether Mr Norman is the brother-in-law, as reported, or the wife's second cousin. There is a direct link with someone who has been rorting the water system or is alleged to have been, whose farms have been raided by the Federal Police, who has been accused of building 'roads'—in those quotation marks again—that just happen to store piles of water from the flood plains and prevent it getting down the river. The fact that this wasn't disclosed, except by the ABC, and I had to start digging through it and find out about it in recent times is extraordinary.
So, if the minister wants to harangue one of my party members about standing up for Queensland's rights, perhaps the minister would stand up for Queensland's rights and his electorate and tell his brother-in-law, or his wife's second cousin, to bulldoze those illegal structures, to stop ripping off water, to stop ripping off the money from the Murray-Darling Basin system, as have been detailed on the ABC.
I will not stand for the hypocrisy in this place. I do not know what I do not know. I have made efforts to find out what it is. Every time you turn around, you get this stench of crookedness and corruption, and unfortunately it all comes from a very similar space.
I am absolutely proud of what South Australians have done in managing a scarce and precious resource. We—and people far more interested, far more energetic, than me—have worked very, very hard in making sure we manage our water rights absolutely well, and we are being let down by what is happening upstream.
I do not trust them. That is the regret. They want to walk away from this basin agreement, an agreement that they signed up to. But, when they find it slightly difficult because of—who knows?—one of the people that have been on the receiving end of their beneficial allocations, or the illegal water structures, or the mismanagement and misallocation of taps, they go to water, if you'll excuse the pun, and expect the rest of us to pick it up.
As I said, I don't know what I don't know, but what I do know is this: the lack of trust and the lack of accountability fills me with scepticism. For that reason alone, I will be supporting this disallowance, because to make changes of this nature, which could have a profound impact not only on my state but on the entire Murray-Darling Basin river system, due to threats, bullying and intimidation is not the way that business in this place should be done.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:32): I rise to contribute to the debate on the disallowance motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young. I can indicate to the chamber that the Nick Xenophon Team will be supporting this disallowance. It is a decision that we have considered carefully, and it is a decision that we have not taken lightly. The Murray-Darling river system is a vital national resource. In my first speech I said that ensuring the health of the Murray-Darling river system so that it's sustainable from both an economic and an environmental point of view was an important priority.
There is a rich history behind the Murray-Darling Basin, and the establishment of an overarching management for the whole of the basin was not without dispute. It took the severe Federation Drought, from 1895 to 1902, to bring the states together to start to agree on the management of the Murray. From the 1970s through to the 1990s, state governments undertook initiatives to sustainably manage land and water. An intergovernmental approach was needed, and in 1987 the first Murray-Darling Basin agreement was reached, which established the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. With the passage of the Water Act in 2007, the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the development of the Basin Plan with bipartisan support, there was a hope that the dispute would be resolved. However, over 100 years later, and five years after the plan was implemented, it is apparent that that dispute still exists.
While NXT is supportive of the plan being implemented in full, there has been a significant reduction in public confidence in the plan's implementation over the past 12 months. We've heard a few of the allegations around the chamber. I did travel to Goondiwindi last year and visited one of the farms that have been talked about on the ABC, and these allegations are serious.
NXT is not alone in its view about the lack of confidence. It is a view that has been expressed by a variety of stakeholders and, indeed, government authorities, and that includes the New South Wales government's Matthews review and the federal Murray-Darling Basin Water Compliance Review. The solution to restoring this confidence lies with a range of measures relating to both transparency and compliance. I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record some of these measures.
NXT is firmly of the view that transparency must be codified before proceeding further with the plan. As a minimum, the following must be released publicly for any proposed water measure, including water buybacks: all modelling and modelling reports, not limited to the final proposals, but those carried out to evaluate the effects of any measures; an independent assessment of the measures; and, in the case of water buybacks, all valuation and assessments made by the government and including independent valuations assessments, which must be made public. The contracts to implement the measures must also be made public. In the case of water buybacks, the contracts should show as a minimum the expenditure amount, the scope of the work associated with the expenditure amount, and the associated volumes of water. In respect of the contracts, we also need to see verification reports showing that the contracts have been complied with. We also need to disclose validation reports—I will talk about those a little bit later—to make sure that we understand that the measure that was intended has been achieved. All complaints in respect of noncompliance must be published on an annual basis, de-identified as required, including a report as to the outcome of any investigation triggered by a complaint.
NXT is also of the view that a number of compliance measures must be put in place before proceeding with the plan. Measures that must be addressed include basin-wide accurate, reliable and tamper-proof metering and the implementation of real-time water accounts. These are not radical ideas. These are ideas that actually reside within the Murray-Darling Basin Water Compliance Review recommendations. Furthermore, all water measures should be subject to strict verification and validation procedures to show contract compliance and, again, the effectiveness of the measure. So, we do something to the river and then we measure it to make sure that what we've done is achieving the results that we thought we were paying for. There must be a substantial increase in the number of compliance officers across the basin, including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority compliance officers. New South Wales has one compliance officer per 355 gigalitres of diversions. Queensland has one per 235 gigalitres. South Australia has one per 56 gigalitres.
It is acknowledged that there have been a number of useful recommendations flowing from the Matthews review and the Murray-Darling Basin Water Compliance Review, particularly in relation to compliance measures. It is noted that timetables have been put in place to implement the recommendations. Nonetheless, the implementation of the recommendations is subject to risk. That's been overtly stated in the case of the Matthews review.
Time is required for the recommendations to be implemented and to bite into the issues they are intended to resolve. It is not an unreasonable position to delay any changes to the plan until the recommendations start to deliver positive outcomes. It is noted that Queensland's independent audit of Queensland's non-urban water measurement and compliance will not report until March 2018. This may be a critical piece of the compliance puzzle. Let's wait and see what it says.
In relation to the northern basin, NXT has concerns with respect to the modelling associated with the Northern Basin Review. For example, the modelling omitted certain hydrological indicators on the Barwon-Darling River, thereby not properly considering the impact of reduced water recovery on low flows, and the modelling was based on best-case scenarios. Another aspect of the changes, for instance, is a lack of statutory requirement to protect water that is recovered with taxpayers' money. These concerns have been exacerbated by The Australia Institute's 'Northern disclosure' paper, which came out a few days ago, which makes a claim that the effect of the proposed SDL adjustments to South Australia has varied from 20 gigalitres down to four gigalitres without any explanation as to the change. Some light needs to be shed on the reasoning behind those changes so we can be confident that what is finally presented is correct.
I will also talk to the SDL adjustments, because—as I will come to—we need to think about an integrated approach to moving forward. Talking about some of the issues associated with the 36 projects that will be used to offset the 605 gigalitre changes, NXT has sought the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's acceptance of the 36 projects by way of a Senate order for production last week so that we can examine the authority's view on the projects as a counterweight to the public perception, which is currently bad. It is important to see this information in order to be informed with respect to any final decisions on the SDL adjustment mechanisms. I note the government is cooperating.
It is also NXT's understanding that the Water Act states that, in setting the SDLs, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority must act on the basis of best available scientific knowledge and on socioeconomic analysis. They must take into account the principles of ecological sustainment and development and give effect to relevant international agreements. The proposed amendments include a provision for states to request a reallocation of the SDLs between valleys within basin zones, for example, within the northern basin of New South Wales. This amendment suggests the MDBA has left it open to a state to vary the SDLs by valley outside the recommendations in the Northern Basin Review or the SDL adjustment mechanisms. Such a change would be outside any parliamentary process and there is no requirement for the revised SDLs to be set with regard to best available scientific knowledge and socioeconomic analysis, principles of ecological sustainable development or relevant international agreements—so there's a problem there.
Any scientific algorithm that was used to initially justify the SDL can subsequently be replaced by an alternate algorithm by the MDBA and the states behind closed doors, and this proposition is clearly unacceptable. The MDBA did not consult publicly on this amendment. It is NXT's view that changes to the plan should be presented in an integrated package: that being, changes resulting from the Northern Basin Review—and we accept that there needs to be some adjustments—changes to the southern basin SDLs and the 450 gigalitre efficiency measures. Ernst & Young reported into the feasible of the 450 gigalitre efficiency measures, but we note that it is, at this stage, only advice to government. This advice needs to be transformed into an approved action plan, which is presented at the same time as changes flowing from the Northern Basin Review and changes to the southern basin SDL adjustments. NXT support for the changes to the plan are contingent on this sort of integrated approach.
The Nick Xenophon Team strongly believes there is a way forward. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a national plan that represents a sensible compromise across competing requirements, including socioeconomic and environmental requirements. No stakeholder was completely happy with the plan, but they recognised its importance. It is noted that some stakeholders have indicated that the disallowance of the instrument before this parliament would cause the plan to collapse. That is in nobody's interests and it will be for the government to ensure this does not occur. In support of the government, NXT indicates that it is willing to support the passage of the instruments through the parliament, just not under the current circumstances. A pause is required for some issues to be addressed and to permit implementation of the recommendations of the various reviews, including the Queensland review when it reports. The Northern Basin Review instrument can be brought back before the parliament, and NXT is open to agreeing to amend the Water Act to allow the SDL adjustments to come back before the parliament.
There is a suggestion from the New South Wales government that a successful disallowance today would cause them to walk away from the plan. I have to say this is a little disingenuous, considering the New South Wales government has its own serious river compliance problems. Their own Matthews review stated this clearly. Indeed, there is an ICAC investigation underway into corruption on the Barwon-Darling.
Everyone needs to remain cool headed. We are dealing with a national river system that must be managed on a national level. Abandoning the plan would be counterproductive, and, again, the government must act to ensure that does not occur. It seems everyone agrees there is a problem, including governments, and there is general agreement on what needs to be done to fix it. The solution just needs time to be implemented, and the Nick Xenophon Team believes supporting the disallowance on the Northern Basin Review gives us that time.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (18:45): I will be brief—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Williams ): Point of order, Senator Cameron?
Senator Cameron: Point of order: a Labor senator jumped up. The normal process is the call should come here. That's how it works.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, it does work like that, but it also works with a bit of fairness, Senator Cameron. We've had the Greens, Senator Bernardi, Labor, the crossbench, and no government at this stage. I'm trying to be fair and go from side to side, as the chair normally does. We just took a speaker from that side of the chamber. Now I'm taking a speaker from this side.
Senator Cameron: Well, that's not—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, I will seek some advice and I will go on my advice. It's my call, and it's who I saw first. Senator Leyonhjelm, you have the call.
Senator LEYONHJELM: I'm tempted to vote in favour of this disallowance. What holds me back is that I'm not sure if New South Wales and Victoria would, in fact, stand by their decision to walk away from the plan. But I wouldn't be too upset if they were to walk away from the plan, because the plan is deeply flawed. It requires social, economic and environmental issues to be equally balanced in terms of managing the water in the Murray-Darling Basin. However, the problem is that only one of those three—environmental issues—is seriously taken into account.
The plan arose in the context of the millennium drought, the most severe drought for 100 years. It prompted panic about climate change and it led some to conclude that droughts were the new normal, that it would never rain again, that water would always be scarce and the environment was facing catastrophe. Sensible people knew otherwise. Droughts always end, and, in 2010-11, that happened. There was widespread flooding and the recovery of wetlands. Birds bred enthusiastically, frogs and fish proliferated, and life carried on as it always has. Dorothea Mackellar's Australia—'a land of droughts and flooding rains'—was never better demonstrated.
During the drought, this plan was devised—first by the Howard government and then by the Rudd-Gillard government. Its intention was to remove water from agriculture in order to save the environment. The details were negotiated during the Labor government period against a background of panic over the drought, state bickering over water sharing, and the threat to Labor from the Greens. As a result, the plan was one per cent science and 99 per cent politics.
The plan calls for the return of 2,750 gigalitres of water to the environment, to be obtained both by buying back water rights from farmers and efficiency measures. There is a further 450 gigalitres to be returned, subject to certain conditions. Water rights have been bought back from farmers in southern Queensland, the northern basin area, New South Wales and Victoria, and a small quantity from South Australia.
In 2015 and 2016, I chaired a Senate inquiry into the effects of the plan's implementation. We held hearings all over the country. What we found was that the loss of irrigation water in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria was having a very profound impact on rural communities. Farms that previously grew irrigated crops—fruit, cotton and pasture for dairy cows—were now growing dryland crops or running a few sheep. They required far fewer inputs—machinery, fertilisers, seeds and so forth—and, as a result, those input suppliers were the ones who were missing out and their workers. The farmers who sold their water were fine, but everybody else who benefitted from those farmers and those farms being active were really suffering. Workers moved away from towns. Communities had fewer people. There were fewer children in schools, volunteer firefighters weren't there and there were fewer customers in local shops and so on.
What we also found was that there's very, very poor understanding of the plan. There's this almost religious belief that the environment simply needs water—just add water and it will all be okay. It doesn't really matter whether it's in the right place, in the right quantities or at the right times—just add water was pretty much what we heard. The fact is, of course, that too much water in the wrong place can do more harm than good.
There is another factor, which nobody seems to be addressing, and that is the river at the moment, in particular the Murray River, is running pretty much right up to the top of the bank. More water added to it, as the 450 gigalitres extra would do, couldn't be carried. The river could not carry that amount of water. Nonetheless, it is often heard that unless that water is added some sort of environmental disaster is going to occur.
I struggle to see why this was ever a South Australian issue, particularly in relation to the Northern Basin Review. The northern basin is all about the Barwon-Darling rivers. The amount of water from those two rivers that ever reach South Australia, or even join up with the Murray at Wentworth, is tiny—on average, across all years, six per cent. It's a tiny amount. It wouldn't matter if irrigation stopped in the entire Queensland and New South Wales areas, where it currently occurs; there would be very, very little additional water ending up in South Australia.
The other problem is: when it does end up in South Australia, what's it used for? It's not as if irrigation in South Australia has been suffering. It ends up in Lake Alexandrina. Lake Alexandrina is kept artificially fresh. It is not a natural freshwater lake. It is an artificial freshwater lake. Large amounts of water, an estimated 900 gigalitres, evaporate in Lake Alexandrina. Here we are taking fresh water, which could be used for agriculture, away from what were thriving rural communities—used for irrigation and so forth to produce food and fibre—and it is running down the river and ending up in South Australia to be evaporated. It's an absolute travesty. If that plan were to blow up and not be re-established unless on more sensible terms, I, for one, would not really mind.
The other issue is South Australia's water supply; it was never in doubt. There is plenty of water for Adelaide. There is plenty of water for South Australia. In fact, there is a guarantee in the plan of 850 gigalitres—more than enough. I am hugely sympathetic to those poor farmers in northern Australia, in Queensland, and in northern New South Wales, who, in the Northern Basin Review, have lost their water. I'm immensely sympathetic to them. Taking more water off them, which would occur if this review were not implemented, would be an absolute tragedy. I will be voting against the disallowance, but, if I thought that voting in favour of it would blow up the plan then that's where my vote would be going.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (18:53): Senator Cameron, we have an agreement across the chamber.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Williams ): Senator Cameron, a point of order?
Senator Cameron: Chair, you indicated in your last ruling on this issue that you would go from side to side—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I did.
Senator Cameron: Senator McAllister has been here waiting patiently to get the call. You ignored her last time. You said you would go from side to side. I really think you should do what you said last time—go from side to side, and, as you said, be fair.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cameron. The Clerk has told me it is my call. Senator Ruston has been here since the start of the debate. You have the call, Senator Ruston.
Senator RUSTON: I had a point of order, but I won't waste any time so that I can let Senator McAllister speak. I stand here speaking on behalf of the coalition government to stress the absolute importance of the delivery of this plan in full and on time, not just to the people of South Australia, as Senator Leyonhjelm has just described, but to every single citizen of Australia. Every single citizen of Australia has a stake in this plan. This is a shared resource. The importance of making sure that we have a sustainable Murray-Darling system into the future is absolutely paramount because it is the obligation of this generation to make sure that that river is in the same state or a better state and a sustainable state for future generations.
The development of this plan has been a long time coming, Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would well know. We worked for 100 years to be able to get to this place and this time. In 2012 then-Minister Burke, the Labor minister who was responsible for water, sat down and managed to negotiate the bipartisan support for the delivery of this plan. This plan is not bits and pieces; this plan is a total plan. It includes up-water, it includes down-water and it includes gap water. There are reviews built into it to enable us to adaptively manage as we get more information. This whole plan has been built on the bipartisanship of the support between the coalition—the Liberals and the Nationals—and the Labor Party. So it is with great regret that I stand here today with the suggestion that there is some likelihood that this disallowance motion will get up and put this plan at risk.
I would also say that one of the great things when we as Australians and as people in this place travel around the world is that we are the envy of the rest of the world because of our water management policies in this place and in this country. We're the envy of the world because we tackled a huge problem like the Murray-Darling Basin. We got together and we provided a blueprint for that solution. We are six years into the 14-year delivery on that plan, and it scares the hell out of me that we would suggest that for political reasons—which appear to be the reasons today—we may disallow one of the important components of the plan and that we could actually put this plan in jeopardy. I suppose that, whilst I'm disappointed in Senator Hanson-Young's disallowance motion, I don't suppose I'm particularly surprised. I certainly don't believe she's about the sustainability of the system; I believe this is all about the fact that the Greens don't want us to grow food in the Murray-Darling Basin. They don't want us to take any water out. I'm not particularly surprised at their obstruction.
I would like to put on the record that there were many things in Senator Hanson-Young's contribution that were factually incorrect. There was no acknowledgement for the good practices that have been put in place in the basin. There was a total over-exaggeration in relation to the threat. They come in here and they make allegations under privilege. Senator Hanson-Young came in here and said John Norman was Minister Littleproud's brother-in-law. He's not Minister Littleproud's brother-in-law, and I'm sure she probably knows that. But the inference and the insinuation, by making these accusations, is that something untoward is going on. I would suggest that if she's going to make those insinuations she could go outside of this chamber to make them so Minister Littleproud has an opportunity to respond.
The amendment that is currently before us that we are seeking to pass through this chamber is an amendment that's actually been generated through a review that was put in place, into the Water Act, by Minister Bourke when he was the minister responsible for water in the previous Labor government. What we are seeing here today is a response to a completely complied-with consulted review put in place by Mr Burke. Now we have a suggestion from Senator Wong that they are now going to vote against the very outcome of the review they sought to have. In the northern basin, 200 people's jobs are going to be threatened if this particular amendment is disallowed today. There is no recognition that there is the potential to deliver really good outcomes and really good environmental outcomes in the northern basin with the delivery of the water targets that we are proposing now should be implemented. The livelihood of 200 people—200 families—are not going to be destroyed for the sake of a very nominal and potentially negligent improvement in environmental outcomes. I would call on the Labor Party to think about the hypocrisy of what they are doing here. Think about the hypocrisy of the fact that you are seeking to vote down an amendment that was of your own making.
Can I also say how tremendously disappointed I am in the Nick Xenophon Team for coming in here and indicating that they don't want to support the amendment either; they're going to support the disallowance. This is Humpty Dumpty politics as its absolute worst. I have read the correspondence that we have seen from the Nick Xenophon Team and I have listened to the contribution of the Nick Xenophon Team. They come in here and say they want to work with us and that they want to deliver the plan. But this is Humpty Dumpty: we are going to come in here today and push Humpty off the wall and smash him into a thousand pieces, and then after the South Australian election we will ride in on our big white horse and help you put the plan back together again. Well, let's not break it in the first place, Nick Xenophon Team, because if we don't break it we don't have to put it back together again. And we can walk and chew gum at the same time—we can continue to deliver the plan and at the same time fix up the problems that you have so eloquently highlighted, which we admit are occurring out there in the basin.
Needless to say with Labor, it is politics over the river's health, politics over our local communities, politics over the people who grow the food that we all like to put on our tables so that our children can eat healthy, clean, green Australian-grown food. We're going to put that at risk. We are going to jeopardise the plan. I say to everybody in this place: please don't think of a game of bluff—the New South Wales and Victorian governments have been quite clear that they are going to respond if this disallowance is upheld. I hope they don't. I will work very hard to get them back to the table, as I'm sure you would expect me to. But please don't threaten them. Basically, what you have done is put a gun to their heads and they've now put a gun back to your head. Why don't we all put our guns down and come back to the table and continue to deliver this plan, as we all said we were going to do in 2012.
This is not a game of bluff. If we see an outcome where New South Wales or Victoria choose to walk away from this plan, as they are threatening to do at the moment, it would be an absolute unmitigated disaster for our state of South Australia. We are the great beneficiaries of the plan delivered in full. I want the plan delivered in full, all 3,200 gigalitres of it. I want it delivered in full and I will work with anybody to make sure we deliver it in the best possible way. I'm happy to listen to everybody's comments about how we can do it better, how we can deliver better outcomes and how we can be more efficient with irrigation water and environmental water. So, why don't we all get back to the table and start being constructive, because pulling this thing apart and going in different directions is serving no purpose for anybody.
Today, Professor Williams from the University of Adelaide went into print to say that the danger of blowing up this plan is absolutely extreme for South Australia. Do not call New South Wales and Victoria's bluff, because if they are not bluffing South Australia is in a very serious and precarious state. I would suggest to all of you that you read Professor Williams's comments about the legal consequences. It is all very well and good for Minister Hunt to say he is going to take it to the High Court, but I have to tell you that the losers will be South Australia, our river and our river communities.
I'm not moving away from the serious allegations that have been made about what is going on. But let's fix them. Let's not come in here and blow up the plan. Can I also say that among everybody who has stood up and made a contribution in this place on this particular disallowance motion I haven't seen too many people who live in the basin. I haven't seen too many people whose livelihoods depend on the river. I'm lucky, I have another job, but I wouldn't be earning too much money if this plan fell over. My irrigation business that grows roses—the business you referred to earlier, Senator Hanson-Young—will be in a very precarious state if this plan is not agreed to. It is also interesting that everyone becomes a scientist when they walk into this place. We've employed an extraordinary number of very good scientists. We've consulted to within an inch of our lives on this plan, but all of a sudden everybody in here seems to think they're smarter than the scientists out there.
I call on everybody to stop the blame game—stop blaming each other. Can we please come back to the table, because the only outcome—the best outcome and the only outcome—that is going to serve the interests of Australia, its people and our communities, is going to be the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. Part of that means that we have to allow amendment mechanisms like the one that is before us to pass this chamber. Please, everybody, reconsider your vote on this disallowance motion. We must pass this amendment because we have to get on with delivering the plan.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (19:04): Make no mistake: the Australian Senate tonight puts the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in peril—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): Senator McAllister, a point of order?
Senator McAllister: I understand that a government minister does have precedence, but I will draw attention to the fact we've had Senator Leyonhjelm, Senator Ruston and now Senator Birmingham. The call has not been provided to this side of the chamber for some time now. I had wanted to place on record my concerns as a New South Wales senator. It's been widely observed that this is not just a South Australian issue. There are serious issues in relation to New South Wales that do need to be canvassed. I am disappointed I haven't been allocated time in this debate, which is about to expire.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you for your point of order. Unfortunately, I saw Senator Birmingham first. Senator Birmingham, could I ask that you perhaps leave two minutes, out of fairness, for Senator McAllister to make a contribution.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Make no mistake: the Australian Senate tonight puts the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in peril. We've heard plenty of claims made, none of them based on science. No specifics—just pure opportunistic politics, coming, sadly, from too many sides.
I, like Senator Wong, have held the water portfolio. I've been there through all the difficult steps of the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I was there when the Water Act was passed initially, by Malcolm Turnbull, back in 2007. It is rank opportunism that now sees, in the midst of a South Australian election and the Batman by-election, the Labor Party, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team play politics with this issue. It puts at risk the basin plan, and, in doing that, it potentially leaves stranded a plan that could have, and should have, secured environmental sustainability throughout the basin and secured the equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres of environmental water support and flows throughout the system. But, instead, it leaves that stranded far, far short. Yes, there are serious allegations of noncompliance in places, and they're being investigated by serious entities: the police, the New South Wales ICAC and others. But, frankly, just because people still commit crimes, we don't throw out the laws.
By destroying and by turning their backs on the commitment that Tony Burke gave as water minister six years ago to deliver a review of the northern basin, the Labor Party are tonight turning their backs on the word they gave by siding with the Greens instead. That's shameful. That puts at risk something that many of us have fought for for over a decade—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, a point of order?
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
Senator Jacinta Collins: Well, you might be, Senator Birmingham. But for you to be speaking in that manner, given—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's your point of order?
Senator Jacinta Collins: The point of order is organisation of the chamber, and Senator Birmingham—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are running down the clock, Senator Collins.
Senator Jacinta Collins: I am running down the clock.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He was going to give two minutes to your colleague.
Senator Jacinta Collins: He was going to, but he shouldn't be speaking. We've already had a government minister speak on behalf of the government, and now we have another one attacking the Labor Party in an untimely way.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's not a point of order, Senator Collins. It's not a point of order at all.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: We remain committed to the plan. We want to work cooperatively with all sides. We invite people to come back to the table and make sure we get this plan delivered, not destroyed.
Senator Jacinta Collins: That's not encouraging them!
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:08): I rise to place on the record my grave concerns about the water management operations and the regulation of water in New South Wales. It is those concerns that give rise to the disallowance that's before the chamber today, and it's those concerns that have prompted Labor to indicate its support for this disallowance as the debate has proceeded.
The issue is this: the position just presented by Senator Birmingham—that this is merely a matter of a handful of people committing crimes—is not what is happening in New South Wales at all. What is actually happening is that there has been an ongoing failure of the New South Wales government to put in place the regulations necessary to protect the health of the river.
Senator O'Sullivan: Where is the evidence? There's no evidence—six inquiries at the one time!
Senator McALLISTER: These are the findings of those inquiries that Senator O'Sullivan refers to in his interjection. The Basin-wide Compliance Review at the end of last year, for instance, concluded that there has been a concerning systemic failure to protect low flows in unregulated rivers in the northern basin. That failure is not a failure arising from criminal activity; it is a failure deliberately engineered by the New South Wales water minister. That minister made changes in 2012, which were extremely significant, to allow irrigators to exchange lower-security water licences for higher-security licences at next to no cost, to allow unlimited carryover from year to year, to remove any limits on pump sizes, and to allow an individual take limit of up to 300 per cent in one year. These aren't failures that arise from a handful of criminals; these are systemic failures that arise from a failure of management by the New South Wales government.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [19:14]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
South Australian State Election
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ) (19:16): I understand that, pursuant to order, we now return to discussion of the MPI:
"The vital importance that the South Australian state election on March 17th produces a government focussed on energy reliability, energy affordability, attracting business investment, lower unemployment and a South Australian economy that contributes better to the national economy."
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:17): Members opposite made the point that sometimes the media is a better arbiter in some of these discussions about where the truth lies. Senator Farrell quoted a number of things out of South Australian media. If you'd like to play that game, perhaps we could look at articles in the Financial Review that highlighted that the confidence in South Australia's economy under the Weatherill government is so low that ANZ chose to sell out of South Australian government bonds, as they were deemed to be too risky because debt has continued to go up. The ABC reported that the current debt, at the time of the article last year, was $6.2 billion, jumping to $6.7 billion in 2017-18. As reported by The Advertiser, seasonally adjusted unemployment is at 5.9 per cent compared to a national figure of 5.5 per cent, and underlying figures show a drop in South Australia's full-time employment despite the fact that the national average is going the other way. Professor Richard Blandy gave a qualitative critique:
Over the term of the Weatherill Government, South Australia's economic performance has been weak by comparison with Australia's as a whole and the two leading economies of Victoria and New South Wales.
Any assessment of economic outcome should look over the whole term because annual South Australian economic growth figures have been subject to massive revisions. For example, the increase in South Australian Gross State Product in 2015-16 was announced in November 2016 as 1.9%. This has just been revised down to 0.3%.
We see consistently that the outcomes achieved in South Australia are at stark variance with the claims that are made, driven by ideology. We heard people talking before about Premier Weatherill's great big renewable energy experiment that he so proudly boasted about on the world stage. But what do we see following the blackouts? Because of the intermittent nature of the structure that couldn't withstand a shock to the power system, the state government spent $550 million on a catch-up program, over $300 million of which was on diesel generators to provide some level of back-up power. We've seen the failures in things like the TAFE system, the very place that should be driving new jobs and new skills for the future. Compare that to the Marshall opposition's strong plan for a future that has a commitment for some 20,800 apprentices, working constructively with the federal government's Skilling Australians Foundation to give South Australia a strong future.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ) (19:20): Order! It being 7.20, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Bitcon, Mr Richard George 'Dick'
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (19:20): I rise to give in the short time allocated to us tonight a synopsis of the life of the great Dick Bitcon. He was a community leader, a successful family and business man, and, for almost 50 years, a great political activist and advocate for the conservative side of politics—more the agricultural side of politics in my home state of Queensland.
Dick's life story is typical of his generation. It started with not much at all—kerosene lamps and hardships. From a beginning with little help or assistance, he was able to go on and eventually make a very successful life for himself and for his family. In business it was principally along agriculture lines. He started out managing properties and farms and then he bought an agricultural supply agency. He then went on to become a trader of many of the agricultural commodities that were produced on the north central coast of my home state of Queensland.
He was an extraordinary man in terms of his contribution to the community. He was a very distinguished and popular community leader. He worked his way through many of the important tasks in a community in a region that one expects from someone of his calibre—leading the Bundaberg Chamber of Commerce and being involved in the rural race club at Bundaberg, both as the president and later on as the patron.
The bit I really want to concentrate on is that for 49 years Dick Bitcon was a political activist and advocate. He didn't just play from the sidelines. Dick was a zone vice-president for almost a decade within what was then the National Party—a predecessor party to the LNP. He served in the era of the great Joh Bjelke-Petersen and under the tutelage of Sir Robert Sparkes, Mike Evans and other well-recognised names in Queensland. He served in an era when Queensland progressed at a pace that has never been seen again and I doubt will ever be seen again in the future.
Dick was one of those leaders in politics who didn't seek any sort of a political career. In fact, what I know of Dick is that he probably exercised more influence from the sidelines than he may have ever done as a political member of parliament. He was certainly responsible for, in a large part, the career of the great Paul Neville, who was in the House of Representatives here for a long period of time. Dick was responsible for nurturing Paul's career. He played a large part in ensuring that the critical advocate from his region was returned here to parliament on many occasions, despite the fact that it was a very difficult seat for us to hold.
Dick's contribution—like so many of his type—was delivered quietly. It was influential. It would be impossible, I suspect, to measure the impact that he had on state policies, initiatives and programs, and also at a federal level. There are many Dick Bitcons. We all know our own Dick Bitcon, but he gave 50 years of his life for free—he sought nothing in return—and contributed to influencing regional affairs, state affairs and national affairs. I think recognition of his efforts deserves being enshrined in the Hansard of this federal parliament. To his family and his many friends who are feeling Dick's passing just a month ago, we send the message that his contribution on all of those levels, and most particularly to his regional community, is well-recognised here in the Senate. We wish them all the best as they work their way through the process of life without the great Dick Bitcon.
Tasmania: Surgical Termination Services
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (19:25): I rise today to talk about an issue of great concern to many Tasmanian women, that being our access to surgical termination services in my home state of Tasmania. I am deeply concerned about the recent closure of Tasmania's main provider of surgical terminations, the Specialist Gynaecology Centres in Hobart. As the main provider of these vital services for women, Dr Hyland has cited the increased demand for medical terminations and sharp increases in insurance premiums, along with the cost of accreditation and compliance, as the main reasons for the closure of the centre. This closure follows the closure of the Launceston clinic in 2016. It means that women who need to access these services can now only do so at great expense by travelling interstate, having to pay for flights, accommodation and other associated expenses. These extra costs are adding more to the stress of what is already often an emotional and stressful time.
Family Planning Tasmania's Chief Executive, Cedric Manen, said the closure of Dr Hyland's clinic will be especially difficult for, and will have an impact upon, women in the north and north-west of Tasmania who need a surgical abortion. The president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Michael Gannon, has said that the situation is unacceptable, stating:
… to think Tasmania has women crossing the Bass Strait to access something which is a legal and legitimate form of healthcare, and the fact that they have to make excuses to be absent from school or work or university to obtain what is their right, is very simply not good enough.
While some women may opt for a medical termination using the drug RU 486, which Labor added to the PBS in 2013, this type of procedure is not always appropriate and some women require a surgical termination. Many Tasmanian women choose to access medical terminations online via the Tabbot Foundation, which was also established by Dr Hyland. The foundation aims to make this process more accessible for women throughout Australia.
Abortion was legalised in Tasmania under Labor in 2013. At the same time safe access zones were created, making it unlawful to protest, harass or record within 150 metres of a clinic. The passage of that legislation clarified the law and greatly improved access for women.
When the Prime Minister was in Hobart recently he was asked about the closure of the Hobart centre. He said, 'I will leave this issue.' This was the Prime Minister's response. Why would the Prime Minister seek to distance himself from Tasmanian women's right to access safe, legal and much-needed abortion services in our home state. The statement by the Prime Minister shows that he doesn't really care about the lack of access to this essential service for Tasmanian women.
We need real leadership to advance women's reproductive and sexual health options. However, both the state Liberal premier, Will Hodgman, and the federal Liberal government seem content to leave this issue to someone else, subjecting the women of Tasmania to increasing costs and other barriers when they need to access terminations. There is a single remaining provider in the state. However, the price charged for this service is not affordable and this may leave many women in a difficult situation. Whether the Prime Minister and the current Premier of Tasmania like it or not, this is an essential healthcare service—not an elective procedure, not a luxury, but a vital service that often needs to be accessed at short notice and at times of significant stress and turmoil, when having the support of family and friends nearby is important.
For the leaders of our nation and state to sit idly by and expose vulnerable women to the potential of having to travel interstate on their own to access a medical service is not on. Senators may recall the motion moved last week by Senators Urquhart and Rice and me that called on the government to work with the states and territories to remove all barriers to Australians accessing abortion services and, where state and territory health systems failed to provide abortion health services, to step in to ensure funding and the provision of essential reproductive health services for all Australians. No-one should have to travel interstate for an essential service, particularly one as stressful as termination. It is of great and public importance that a solution to this problem is found as soon as possible. There is no excuse for this. All Australians deserve to have an accessible health system they can rely on in their time of need.
Australian Capital Territory
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (19:30): Late last year I was extremely pleased to be part of a government that put their money where their mouth is in terms of supporting our local defence families through a number of grants for community support organisations. Our diggers make a huge sacrifice in the defence of our nation so that we at home can feel safe. I think it is only fair that we look out for their families and do all we can to include them in the community.
I'm quite proud of two groups here in my local area that will benefit from this important government initiative. The Jerrabomberra Playgroup will receive $14,299 to support newly posted defence families in the area to connect to the local community. The Gungahlin Defence Families Playgroup will receive $4,940 to facilitate events and activities and to provide a support network for defence families in Gungahlin. Funding from these grants will allow recipients to assist defence families to engage with their local communities, promote personal growth and resilience, and support child and youth development. These grants will also create opportunities for defence families to form new friendships and networks, share information and ideas, and help them manage the demands of military life, such as frequent postings and deployments to new locations every two or three years.
Our coalition federal government has once again walked the talk, so to speak, with over $640 million in grant funding announced by our Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, in December last year. The National Health and Medical Research Council have backed our world-leading medical researchers and scientists in a show of support for their work towards making the next major medical breakthrough. Our government is committed to building the world's best health system in Australia. Health and medical research plays a critical role in achieving this. Researchers supported by these grants will help address key national health priorities and support Australians who live with disease. Our Australian National University here in the ACT has demonstrated its dedication to health and medical research, and these grants reflect the high quality and diversity of this endeavour in Australia today. Some of the projects funded include research by Dr Si Ming Man into DNA sensing in certain types of cancer; by Associate Professor Philip Batterham on increasing engagement for online psychological programs for improving mental health; and by Professor Emily Banks for gathering large-scale data to help understand outcomes for cancer survivors.
As many of you would be well aware, as senators and members of parliament we are afforded the special privilege of facilitating significant anniversary and birthday messages from Her Majesty The Queen, the Governor-General and the Prime Minister. To live a long life or sustain a strong, long marriage is no small achievement, and it's right that we do all we can to honour and celebrate those Australians who have contributed so much to our nation. I want to take the opportunity tonight to recognise here in the Senate chamber some of the local Canberrans I have had the privilege of honouring on their particular anniversary or birthday. I trust you will all be just as encouraged as I was when I first heard their stories.
Nemesio and Hilaria Amoyen from Kaleen celebrated 50 years of marriage on 6 January this year. Their daughter, Annie-Marie Munoz, contacted me as a surprise and had this to say:
I'm sure each couple who make it to 50 years of marriage have many stories to tell. I'm particularly proud of my parent's story as it signifies patience and faith. Like many migrants who were professionals in their country of origin, my parents came to Australia for a better life but had to get whatever job they could get to look after their family. My dad was a chief investigator in the Philippine National Bank (a prestigious position) and took on a job as a baker for puffin donuts to make ends meet in Canberra. Relatives in the Philippines gossiped and looked down on him as he went from a white collar job to a blue collar job. He eventually won a job in the public service in the accounting section of the AGPS. My mum too had her trials. She almost died when I was born due do postpartum haemorrhage and a few years ago she was diagnosed with tongue cancer (which she overcame). She was then diagnosed with thyroid cancer and again almost died post-surgery due to complications the day she was being discharged from hospital.
Some others who have celebrated milestones recently are Les and Anne Lyons from Ngunnawal, who celebrated 50 years of marriage; Noel and Rewa Bate from Coombs, who celebrated 60 years of marriage; Lucian and Elizabeth Bobruk from Fraser, who celebrated 50 years of marriage in December; Trevor and Carol Smith from Holder, who celebrated 50 years of marriage in December; Amelia Hausia from Evatt, who celebrated her 95th birthday on 3 December; and Mrs Dorothy Nunn from Bruce, who celebrated an incredible 100th birthday on 25 January this year.
Regional Australia
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:35): I rise tonight to speak on an issue very close to my heart. As a senator for Queensland, with duty electorates including Flynn, Maranoa and Wright, I hear a lot about regional inequality on the ground, the negative differences and outcomes experienced by people in the regions—whether it be in western outback towns like Longreach and Roma, industrial hubs like Gladstone in Central Queensland, remote communities in tropical North Queensland, or in-between areas like Rathdownie and Beaudesert, not quite rural but also not traditional suburbia—and their city cousins.
I'm proud to be a regular visitor in the regions and a cosponsor for Labor for the Regions Queensland. This is an organisation which I cosponsor with Jim Madden and Cathy O'Toole, and we have set this organisation up so as to provide a voice for regional Queenslanders within the party in Queensland. In the last six months, I've been to Longreach, Barcaldine, Winton, Boonah, Rockhampton, Emerald, Gladstone, Cairns and other areas. Next week I will be in Rockhampton again, and on 10 March I will be holding a mobile office at Stanthorpe, for those people who might be listening. I look forward to seeing people in Stanthorpe again.
I'm also proud that federal Labor has in Bill Shorten a leader who cares deeply about regional Australia. As elected Labor representatives, we are on the ground listening and developing policies for regional Queenslanders. I've participated in a range of roundtables and listening opportunities with the leader, talking to business groups. We've been talking to employer representatives, to local authorities and to various support groups in these areas.
The issues that have been raised with me most frequently by individuals, families and businesses include things like health and the difficulties and extra costs in accessing top-quality medical services in regional areas; education and the concerns that city kids are achieving more and that higher education is less available; employment issues, like people having to leave their home towns to find jobs; lack of diversity in regional industry; lesser ability for collective bargaining; poorer work and wage conditions; the unfair distribution of government funding—for example, the resources boom benefiting the cities more than the regions; and the vital area of communications.
Labor believes in addressing regional inequality through investing more in health and education; encouraging the trade union movement and legislating fairer work conditions and wages, including the restoration of penalty rates; encouraging workplace participation through funding proper disability support systems and childcare subsidies; and an appropriately funded welfare system that has compassion for those who need a helping hand. It's been impressed on me in my visits to various areas that this type of infrastructure—some might call it soft infrastructure—is so important to building communities and creating the economies in these areas, which is absolutely vital to ensuring that we have equality.
In addition, in our last term of government, Labor began the rollout of a genuine National Broadband Network, recognising this was one way we could level the playing field in the regions. Unfortunately, the Liberal-Nationals have botched that opportunity with the NBN. They're ripping money out of education and health. It's time we held the government to account.
In addition to my responsibilities standing up for Queenslanders, I chair the Senate Economics References Committee. In relation to the role of the committees, I echo the words of my Labor Senate colleague the Hon. Kim Carr, who has said that one of the most important functions the Senate has is the power of exposure. I've formed the view that the extent of inequality in our regions must be exposed. Through this exposure, the government will be forced to act. To that end, today I moved a motion for a Senate inquiry into:
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.
This is a wide-ranging inquiry. It's comprehensive and will provide an avenue for individuals, businesses and advocacy groups in our regions to share with us their experiences. Labor and I hope the government will work with stakeholders to determine how we can measure the key causes of regional inequality. Once we have that evidence, we can start to develop a way forward to reduce the extent of regional inequality in the future.
South Australia
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (19:40): As a senator for South Australia it is one of the great privileges to travel around my home state to visit the regional communities to identify and understand what the challenges are in a state where the local government is very city centric. It's not good enough, quite frankly, for state governments to focus on the inner city masses. There needs to be an equal focus, an understanding, and a commitment to supplying our regional communities with the services and the infrastructure that they desperately need. If a state is to truly develop its resources, it needs to develop its regional communities.
As I travel around the state, I go to places like Port Lincoln, where I have a particular affinity and where so many hundreds of millions of dollars have been added to our state's economy by the fishermen there. They lament the fact that it seems that both the major parties in South Australia have turned their backs on them. They no longer really seem to care about their contributions. In Port Lincoln—it's one of the biggest centres in South Australia, if not the biggest—we have young mums who worry about being able to have children in a hospital which is struggling to provide services. We have people who are unable to access the PATS program to get to specialist services that they desperately need in Adelaide in a timely manner. These are very real problems that people feel they need someone to go into bat for them on, and it's been missing in South Australia.
In other communities they are worried about water. They are worried about roads. They are worried about mental health issues. They are worried about the drug problems that are endemic. They're wondering why the government isn't spending more money on frontline policing services, health services or community services to deal and address these problems to make country life, rural life and regional life even more attractive than it currently is.
One of the things that I pick up is that individuals across South Australia identify a champion of their own. And I regret to say it's not Premier Jay Weatherill. It's not the opposition leader, Steven Marshall. It is a person that the Sunday Mail, which is the major Sunday paper—and the only Sunday paper in South Australia—identified some years ago as the real opposition leader in South Australia. I'm very proud to say that man is Robert Brokenshire.
Robert Brokenshire is a member of the legislative council. He is a former police minister under a Liberal government. He is now a member of the Australian Conservatives. I'm so pleased and proud of his commitment to rural and regional South Australia, because his is the voice that the people in these communities hear sticking up for them. Whether it comes down to rural health care, whether it comes down to roads or whether it comes down to sticking up for farmers—the forgotten people who contribute so much to our economy—Robert Brokenshire is always the person who is there talking on regional radio, visiting the community regions and having community meetings and forums to identify and seek to solve the problems. He lives rural life. He continues to run a farm—it is his own business—as well as being a member of parliament. It gives him an empathy and an understanding, which those who live within the city confines can never really hope to replicate.
For the rest of us who are in awe of this sort of work, we spend our time in regional communities and we seek to learn as much as we possibly can. But unless you understand the lived existence—the perils that come with it, the worries that come from not being able to get adequate dental care or health care for your child or yourself in certain circumstances, the worries about transport services, the worries about wellbeing and the worries about the safety of roads when your child first gets a licence—you won't understand how all of those things are playing into the minds of the great people of South Australia who prop up our regional communities.
They need champions. I regret to say that it seems that, because there are not millions of voters out there, the major parties have forgotten them. I'm not going to nail all the individual members, because there are some exceptional regional representatives in South Australia, but it just seems that overall they have lost a champion—outside of Robert Brokenshire.
Robert Brokenshire, as I said, has been described as the true opposition leader in South Australia. It's because he picks up the issues that matter to the people. He's concerned about electricity. He's concerned about health. He's concerned about education. He's concerned about farmers and primary producers. He wants to see sustainable mining work in concert with farmers to produce the best possible outcome for the state. I hope, and I wish him every success in the next election.
Tasmanian State Election
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (19:45): Tasmania four years ago was a very different place to what it is today. After 16 years of continuous Labor and Labor-Greens governments, Tasmanians were living in a state that was bouncing along the bottom of just about any social or economic metric that mattered. As you would appreciate, Mr President, there is an intricate relationship between economic performance and social outcomes. Whether it be in employment opportunities—or rather the lack of them—educational achievements, hospital waiting lists or just about any other measure, Tasmania was at the bottom or very close in just about any area that matters. This wasn't just an interesting series of unfortunate facts. As you would appreciate, it delivered challenges and poor outcomes for Tasmanians. It impacted in real, practical ways on their lives and on their equality and their standard of living.
But Tasmania today is a very different place to what it was four years ago. Although, as noted by the Premier, Will Hodgman, at the launch of the Liberal Party campaign on Sunday, not all Tasmanians have yet to personally feel the benefits of the change, Tasmania today is at the middle or even better in all the same metrics in which it languished near the bottom just four years ago. Again, this is important because these metrics measure real impacts on people's lives—their ability to provide for their families; to house, feed and clothe them; to become better educated; and to enjoy better health and other care when it is needed.
This turnaround has not happened by chance, and it has not happened due to extraneous factors outside the Hodgman Liberal government's efforts. On the contrary, it has happened because the Hodgman Liberal government understands that the best way to provide real opportunity for Tasmanians is to deliver a regulatory environment and make decisions which foster business confidence and community confidence, encourage sensible investment and development, and invigorate a feeling of self-worth and desire for individual achievement. The way it has governed since winning in 2014 has reflected this approach. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
On 3 March, Tasmanians will have an important decision to make. The choice is stark. Tasmania can continue in the positive direction that we're heading under a majority Hodgman Liberal government or return to the dark old days of a Labor-Greens minority government. Make no mistake: there are realistically only two possible outcomes on 3 March. One is that neither party wins a majority. In this case, past form shows that the two left-wing parties, Labor and the Greens, will form a coalition to govern. Contrary to spin put out there, the Liberal Party has never entered into any form of coalition with the Greens in order to form a government in Tasmania, and it never will.
The only other option to neither of the two major parties getting a majority is a majority Liberal government. This is because the number of seats that Labor needs to win to achieve majority in Tasmania is not achievable even on the face of the most favourable polls. As such, if Tasmanian voters who remain unsure of who to vote for want a majority government—and can I say that all Tasmanians should want a majority government—the only option is to vote Liberal.
So how has Tasmania improved since the election of the majority Hodgman Liberal government? Aside from being a prouder state than we were four years ago, Tasmania now ranks as having the highest business confidence in Australia. Tasmania now has the lowest elective surgery waiting list in the state's history. I think that's worth repeating: the lowest elective surgery waiting list ever in Tasmania.
Under former health minister Michelle O'Byrne 287 nurses were cut, ward 4D in Launceston was shut and $500 million was ripped from the health system. When it comes to health, Labor's track record speaks for itself in Tasmania: it's broken, and it's hypocritical. Will Hodgman's Liberal team has a plan to make the largest single additional investment ever in Tasmania's health system—a record $757 million injection. This commitment is only possible because of the hard work that the Hodgman Liberal government has done to rebalance the books. Will Hodgman's health policy will deliver 298 new beds across the state, which is an increase of 20 per cent. It will deliver 1,332 new staff comprising 832 new nurses, 158 new doctors, 128 new allied health professionals and 182 new operational staff. Even if we ignore Labor's record on health cuts from when they were last in government, what they are promising doesn't match what the Liberals are promising moving forward. Liberals will invest $757 million to Labor's $563 million. Even on health, the Liberals are beating Labor hands down.
Senate adjourned at 19 : 50
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.]
Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011—Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011—
Autonomous Sanctions (Designated and Declared Persons – Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) Continuing Effect Declaration and Revocation Instrument 2018 [F2018L00099].
Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Libya) Continuing Effect Declaration and Revocation Instrument 2018 [F2018L00101].
Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Syria) Continuing Effect Declaration and Revocation Instrument 2018 [F2018L00100].
Migration Act 1958—Migration Regulations 1994—Migration (IMMI 18/023: Arrangements for Work and Holiday and Working Holiday Visa Applications) Instrument 2018—IMMI 18/023 [F2018L00098].
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013—
Deregistration of Darwin Hotel Holdings No. 2 Pty Ltd—19 January 2018.
Issue of shares—IBA Tourism Asset Management Pty Ltd—19 January 2018.
Tabling
The following documents were tabled pursuant to standing order 61(1)(b):
Auditor-General's report for 2017-18
1. No. 27—Performance audit—Management of the Australian Government's Register of Lobbyists: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.