Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, we proceed.
Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016. The bill contains five measures. Schedule 1 relates to Australia's terrorism insurance scheme. Australia's terrorism insurance scheme was established to minimise the wider economic impacts that flowed from the withdrawal of terrorism insurance in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States of America on 11 September 2001. The scheme was established under the Terrorism Insurance Act 2003 to ensure continued provision of terrorism insurance coverage for commercial property and associated business interruption losses and public liability claims.
The act requires that, at least once every three years, the minister must prepare a report that reviews the need for the act to continue in operation. Since its establishment in 2001, the terrorism insurance scheme, including the review process, has received bipartisan support. Labor will support this measure, which will put beyond doubt that the scheme applies in relation to losses attributable to declared terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or other similar means. This is in line with the scheme's original intent.
I now move to schedule 2, the public availability of employee share scheme documents. Labor will support this measure. However, in doing so, I note that the member for Chifley has raised concerns in the other place about how aspects of this measure will work.
I also note that his measure was originally announced as part of the government's so-called National Innovation and Science Agenda. It is worth remembering that, when Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott as Prime Minister in September 2015, he adopted the term 'innovation' as a catchphrase. But in less than 12 months, when the nation voted in July last year, his innovation talk had fizzled out. The truth is that the Prime Minister was never really clear what he meant by it.
To take just one example that is especially pertinent in the week after we had the 'Science meets Parliament' events, the relationship the government envisages between its innovation goals and research policy is alarmingly short-sighted. We have seen this emphasis on commercialisation in the government's inept handling of the CSIRO. Under two prime ministers and four industry and science ministers, there has been a consistent preference for research outcomes that turn a quick dollar. This is not conducive to the outlook and practice of science. If you abandon basic research, you will diminish your ability to do applied research effectively. The history of science is full of examples. To cite one of the best known: the technology that gave the world wi-fi was developed by CSIRO astronomers studying black holes. A government that understood innovation, research and the relationship between them would have recognised that this narrow focus is self-defeating.
Schedule 3 adds six organisations as specifically listed deductible gift recipients. This ensures that gifts of $2 or more to these organisations will be tax deductible.
Schedule 4 of the bill extends tax exemptions on disaster relief payments to New Zealanders working in Australia on a special category visa who receive these disaster relief payments. The Australian government makes certain payments to eligible Australians to assist when a major disaster happens and these payments are exempt from income tax, or an income tax rebate is available. The government may extend these payments and the equivalent tax treatment to New Zealand special category visa holders on an ex gratia basis. This bill ensures that, going forward, the exemption from income tax and the income tax rebate are similarly available on these ex gratia payments provided to these New Zealanders residing in Australia.
The New Zealand special category visa is a temporary visa allowing New Zealand citizens to reside, work and study indefinitely in Australia as long as they remain New Zealand citizens. New Zealand citizens arriving in Australia are generally eligible for a New Zealand special category visa, subject to meeting other eligibility criteria. New Zealand special category visa holders generally pay Australian tax because they are Australian residents for tax purposes. Tax relief for those in need is rare from a government eager to hand a $50 billion tax cut to multinational companies and large banks.
Schedule 5 amends the Corporations Act 2001 to provide greater protection for retail client money and property held by financial services licensees in relation to over-the-counter derivatives products. Client money is money paid to a financial services licensee—in this case, the broker—by the client for a financial service. It remains the client's own money, although it is held by the licensee. Typically, Australian financial services licensees are required to keep client moneys in designated client money accounts to which a statutory trust is applied by virtue of the client money regime.
This schedule will close an exception to this for retail clients in relation to derivatives. That exception means that, currently, client money or property held in connection with a product or financial service that is, or relates to, a dealing in a derivative may be used for the purpose of meeting obligations incurred by the licensee in connection with margining, guaranteeing, securing, transferring, adjusting or settling dealings in derivatives by the licensee, including dealings on behalf of people other than the client. The restrictions imposed on the use of derivative retail client money and property do not apply to derivatives cleared through a clearing and settlement facility.
Labor will support these measures on the basis that they will improve the protection for consumers. They will improve protection for retail investors who may not be able to assess the risks of their money being used by the financial services licensee to meet other obligations of the licensee.
While Labor supports sensible measures that improve the protection of consumers in the financial services sector, such measures, on their own, are insufficient. There is more to be done to resolve the issues surrounding culture and practice in the banking and financial services sector.
Just recently we had a report from ASIC in relation to how large institutions oversee their financial advisers. Key findings of the report include: failure to notify ASIC about serious non-compliance concerns regarding adviser conduct; significant delays between the institution first becoming aware of the misconduct and reporting it to ASIC; inadequate background and reference-checking processes; and inadequate audit processes to assess whether the advice complied with the best-interest duty and other obligations.
ASIC also noted:
… many of the institutions we reviewed did not ensure that their internal processes consistently supported the value of 'doing what is right' for the customer. Many of the failings we identified led, or had the potential to lead, to poor outcomes for customers.
Labor believe that the only investigation that can to get to the bottom of issues like these is a royal commission, and that is why we will continue to argue for one. We believe that any systemic issues need to be investigated in a thorough and transparent way. We need to give victims a chance to be heard, and we need to give Australians the confidence that these scandals will not continue to occur. So we will support this bill, including this measure that will improve protections in relation to retail clients for over-the-counter derivatives, while noting that there is a lot more to do.
I rise to make a few brief comments in support of schedule 5 of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, that relate to strengthening client money protection in the retail or over-the-counter derivatives area. This legislation brings Australia into line with global and industry best-practice regulations in handling client money and ensures retail investors are better protected. It fixes an anomaly where investors in CFD and FX products were potentially exposed to losing their funds in insolvencies, frauds or mismanagement as, until now, licensees in this area could actually use client money for their own purpose.
This was at odds with virtually all other jurisdictions around the world and other asset classes such as shares. These reforms provide ASIC with the power to effectively monitor the limitations on the use of derivative client money by enabling ASIC to make client money reconciliation and reporting rules. I commend ASIC for pushing for these reforms. It is now up to ASIC and the industry to work together to implement the new regulatory environment.
I would like to also commend the work of the industry body that has strongly supported and explained the need for these reforms, the Australian CFD and FX Forum, in particular a founder of the forum and a current director, Tamas Szabo, and his team. They have consistently called for this reform for almost a decade now, and the member firms of the forum long ago self-regulated to properly segregate their client moneys. Forum members also took the initiative to form themselves into an industry association with the goal of working with regulators to boost investor confidence. They have formulated best practice standards, had them examined and authorised by the ACCC and now all voluntarily adhere to them. Apart from segregating and properly handling all client moneys, the standards cover communications and education materials, client qualifications, risk management and collateral, trading policy, appropriate hedging and financing, and customer relations protocols.
As I have said many times, the key for better investor outcomes is transparency and regulatory protection to allow investors to educate themselves about and understand the investments they are making, while providing them with a secure regulatory environment that prevents losses outside their control and judgement. Schedule 5 of the bill is another step in the right direction and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Let me firstly thank senators who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 is a bill that empowers Australians to participate in the economy with greater certainty. Schedule 1 of this bill makes an important clarification to the Terrorism Insurance Act 2003 to ensure it provides insurance against a declared terrorist incident, including when carried out by chemical, biological or other similar means.
Schedule 2 amends the disclosure requirements for eligible employee share schemes. These changes ensure that schemes' disclosure documents lodged by eligible companies will no longer need to be made public if all companies in the group are unlisted, have been incorporated for less than 10 years and have an aggregated turnover of less than $50 million.
Schedule 3 of this bill adds six entities to the deductible gift recipient specific listings in division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Schedule 4 provides ongoing income tax relief to ex gratia disaster assistance payments made to eligible New Zealand special category visa subclass 444 holders. Finally, schedule 5 of this bill introduces amendments to the client money regime which will close a loophole to ensure that all retail client money is protected in the event of a firm's insolvency. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
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.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to make a few comments on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. The bill contains two schedules of changes, both of which are limited in their respective scope.
Schedule 1 of the bill will give effect to minor technical changes to income tax law, with the aim of ensuring that measures in the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 operate in accordance with their original policy intent. The Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 passed late in the 43rd Parliament, containing two tax measures that seek to encourage investment in our science and innovation sectors. The first of these two measures provides concessional tax treatment for investments in innovative, high-growth potential start-ups—the tax incentives for early stage investors measure. The second measure is reformed tax arrangements for venture capital limited partnerships in order to improve access to capital and make the regime more user-friendly and more internationally competitive—the venture capital investment measure.
Under the arrangements put in place with the passage of that bill, however, those who invest through an interposed trust—investment trusts operated through an intermediary—have not been able to access the capital gain concessions provided by these two measures. It was intended that these incentive measures would apply to these types of investors. The changes in schedule 1 of this bill will ensure those investors who have made their investments through an interposed trust will be able to access the capital gain concessions provided by those tax incentives for early stage investors and venture capital investment measures, as originally intended. This is achieved by ensuring the same CGT outcome arises for the investors in an early stage innovation company, regardless of whether they invest directly or indirectly, such as through a fixed trust.
Schedule 2 of the bill makes amendments the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. Broadly, the changes contained in schedule 2 will streamline ASIC's ability to share confidential information with the Commissioner of Taxation, mirroring the existing arrangement for sharing information between ASIC, the Reserve Bank of Australia, APRA and the responsible minister. Simplifying the information-sharing process will enable both agencies to ensure compliance with the law and also to more effectively identify patterns of noncompliance. In practical terms this will enable more timely collaboration during investigations into illegal or high-risk activities.
As Australia's corporate, markets, financial services and consumer credit regulator, ASIC has been granted extensive information-gathering powers by the parliament that are essential for ASIC to fulfil its mandate so that Australia's financial markets operate fairly and transparently. As is appropriate, there are strict confidentiality rules about the use and disclosure of the information ASIC obtains. It can only share this information with a limited group of prescribed individuals and entities, such as those I cited earlier.
At present, in order for ASIC to be able to share information with the Commissioner of Taxation, the ASIC chairperson, or their delegate, must be satisfied that doing so would enable or assist the Commissioner of Taxation to perform or exercise their functions or powers. This is in addition to the Commissioner of Taxation being satisfied that they have the authority to receive and utilise the information. This process contains inefficiencies and hampers effective collaboration between the agencies in ensuring compliance and investigating potential illegal activity. As a result of the changes contained within schedule 2, ASIC will be authorised to provide the Commissioner of Taxation with information it holds that is protected or that is given to it in confidence in connection with the performance of its functions or exercise of its powers. With regard to privacy protections, any information that is shared between ASIC and the commissioner remains subject to strict confidential protections.
We are satisfied that the key issues and provisions contained within this legislation have been sufficiently vetted by the processes of the parliament and that adequate consultation with interested parties and stakeholders has been conducted.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Schedule 1 of this bill makes minor technical amendments to the income tax law to ensure that two National Innovation and Science Agenda Measures operate in accordance with the original policy intent. Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2011 to streamline the process by which the Australian Securities and Investments Commission may share confidential information with the Australian Taxation Office for its use in the performance of its functions.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
This bill amends the Farm Household Support Act 2014 to ensure that recipients of the farm household allowance are not required to serve an ordinary waiting period or liquid assets wait period—if the LAWP is applicable—before they can commence receiving the farm household allowance. Farmers seeking to obtain the farm household allowance are required to serve the ordinary waiting period of one week before payments can commence. The bill removes the requirement for the ordinary waiting period. Farmers seeking to obtain the farm household allowance who have liquid assets are required to serve up to a 13-week waiting period. The bill removes this waiting period.
The bill is seeking to streamline access to the farm household allowance for farmers and their partners experiencing financial hardship. However, the true intent of the bill is about addressing some of the failings in farm household support. Farm household support, as described by the shadow minister for agriculture, is like an unemployment benefit for farmers doing it tough—farmers who find themselves in a situation, whether it be because of drought or some other influence upon them, where they find it necessary to turn to the government, temporarily at least, for support.
This bill seeks to address the deficiencies in the farm household allowance, deficiencies that were obvious from day one. I remind the House that it was the farm household allowance that got the minister for agriculture in a bit of trouble in the other place when the minister attempted to respond to a question from the shadow minister about the failings of drought policy and the farm household allowance, which caused him to doctor the Hansard. In his attempt to embellish the effectiveness of the farm household allowance, he completely misled the House, kept it quiet and doctored his Hansard.
This bill is an admission that the minister was wrong back in 2011. Sadly, rather than dealing with the difficulties farmers were facing then when applying for the farm household allowance, the minister choose to sack his departmental secretary, Dr Grimes. Dr Grimes' crime was to take the minister on, question his integrity and ask him to, out of respect for his department, do the right thing, fess up in the parliament, correct his Hansard and take responsibility. But the minister decided he would not be taking any responsibility, and that is a sad and tragic event in the history of the department of agriculture in this country.
The point is that we have been telling the minister since at least the last quarter of 2014 that farmers were hurting and they were unable to access the farm household allowance. The bill does no harm, but sadly it does not fix all the problems associated with the farm household allowance. The bill removes the ordinary waiting period for those making an application. In other words, currently, if you apply to Centrelink for the farm household allowance and secure approval for the farm household allowance, you can wait a week before you qualify. This bill removes the one-week waiting period, but the Centrelink problems and the complexities of the form have not been fixed.
Senator McKenzie had a bit of a road tour or roadshow, where she consulted people about the problems that they were having with the farm household allowance. She hailed those roundtables as a great success. She finally delivered a report to the parliament, but only because the member for Indi insisted on one. But none of the key issues Senator McKenzie raised in her report have been addressed by this bill, and certainly this bill in no way fixes the Centrelink problems.
The other provision we are supportive of is a redefinition of some off-farm assets as on-farm assets—things like water allocations and interests in cooperatives—so that those assets do not count against a farmer when facing the assets test.
I rise today to speak to the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. The Greens will be supporting the sensible changes contained within the bill. The ordinary and liquid assets waiting periods appear to be pointless delays in farmers getting the support they need to keep themselves afloat while they return to profitability. We know that accessing these payments can still be a source of needless stigma for many farmers and it makes no sense to put in place punitive incentives for farmers to be running down their liquid assets while they are already trying to save their businesses.
The Greens also support the inclusion of water rights and other clearly farm-related assets, such as marketing cooperatives, within the farm asset cap of $2.55 million. Water rights, and other non-traditional assets held with regard to supporting farm business activity, are clearly farm assets, and I am glad to see that the government has listened to the community in making these changes.
It is my understanding that this bill is a response from the Nationals to a series of roundtables held across the country in dairy country last year, and these roundtables were into the milk price crisis and its effect on dairy communities. I have also been to many of the hearings that were held in Victoria and Tasmania as part of the Senate inquiry into the dairy industry. I heard many stories of how the dairy producers have been hit really hard by the world milk price and the actions of the major dairy producers and supermarket duopoly, Coles and Woolies, who are constraining and containing the level of return that dairy farmers are able to get for their product. This is a fundamental issue with the low prices that dairy farmers are able to get that lead them into this position of needing to access household support. But the Senate Standing Committee on Economics is still conducting its inquiries into these matters, and the Greens will have much more to say about this in the coming months.
However, one thing I can say today with a degree of certainty is that the dairy crisis that we are currently in will not be the last agricultural commodity crisis in the years ahead, and yet this government has its head in the sand when it comes to addressing the major issue facing our agricultural producers today, and that of course is global warming. We know that commodity price swings are only going to be exacerbated by global warming. Agricultural commodity supply and commodity prices will further fluctuate from year to year as extreme weather events, droughts, a shift in the Asian monsoon season and increased soil salinisation from seawater rises impact around the world. This is happening already and it is happening in the context of a tighter food supply, with demand for food growing year on year, with an increasingly growing middle class in Asia and populations still growing around the world.
We know that drought, water shortages and heatwaves are going to harm yields at home and lead to huge increases in the financial riskiness of farming. It is shameful that the government and the National Party are still dragging their heels on acknowledging, let alone addressing, climate change. It is shameful that just weeks after the National Farmers' Federation called for 'a coordinated national strategy for emissions reduction and electricity market reform' so that farmers, food producers, regulators and communities can all plan and have certainty in the transition to a low-carbon economy, the Deputy Prime Minister is still out there driving a fear campaign about rolling blackouts unless the government intervenes with subsidies to prop up polluting coal ventures. If we want what is best for agricultural communities, then there has to be planning for the transition to a low-carbon economy and how we are going to adapt to climate change, on ways to insulate farming communities from drought, extreme weather and commodity price swings and to act as quickly as possible to shift our industry to a more sustainable basis by helping them decarbonise their farm operations and getting cheaper and better access to renewables, storage and low emissions farming methods.
We know that the impacts of global warming are already being felt in the heatwaves that hit New South Wales late last year and earlier this year, and we have had the impact for the dairy industry. Forty-seven dairy cows were killed in the Shoalhaven because of excessive temperatures. These are the impacts that are being felt already. We know that wheat yields have been dropping over the last 20 years due to the increase in temperature due to global warming. That decrease in wheat yields has been evened out and masked by an increase in productivity, but that is not going to continue to occur. We know that under four degrees of global warming, which is where we are headed at the moment, the climate of our current wheat-growing areas is going to become like the climate of the central deserts, and you cannot grow wheat in that climate. These are the huge impacts of global warming that are going to overwhelm the impacts that we have seen so far.
While the Greens today are supporting the changes in the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill and acknowledge that they are improvements on the status quo, we do so while also acknowledging that this government is completely dropping the ball on the largest issue facing regional communities and call for an end to the ridiculous bull-headed approach from the Turnbull government on managing our transition to a low-carbon economy and a safe climate for us all.
As a senator who is serving the people of Queensland and Australia I rise to congratulate the government on this Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. It does remove the waiting period, which is currently up to 13 weeks, for eligible farmers to receive the farm household allowance. It also changes the categorisation of certain assets, such as water entitlements, which has the effect of broadening eligibility. However, I need to talk about two additional things.
The first is: what about compensation for farmers who had their property rights stolen under the Howard government? Prime Minister John Howard colluded with the Premier of Queensland and the environment minister in New South Wales at the time, Mr Bob Carr. They stole farmers' property rights in order to comply with the Kyoto protocol, despite the fact that the Prime Minister at the time said that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol. He said he would comply. My understanding is that there are two ways to comply with the Kyoto protocol. The first is to cut back on industry. At the time the Prime Minister did not have the guts to do that, so he took the softer option. He penalised the farmers by preventing them from clearing land. That was a clear stealing of farmers' property rights.
We are told that there is nothing more sacrosanct to the Liberal Party than protecting property rights. Instead, the Prime Minister, in collusion with the then Premier and a minister in the New South Wales government, stole these rights without compensation. If these rights had been stolen or removed by the federal government alone, that would have required compensation. That they were removed by the passing of native vegetation protection legislation by the states meant the farmers were not entitled to compensation. So we had millions, if not billions, of dollars of farmers' land and property rights stolen by the federal government working with the New South Wales and Queensland governments. It was an absolute theft. Yet now we have the Liberals talking about supporting changes to section 18C, which we endorse. The fundamental freedom is property rights, but freedom of speech is also there. Why is it that the Liberals still will not give compensation to farmers for stealing their property rights?
I must add before moving from this topic that four years after he was thrown out of office John Howard in fact admitted in a major policy speech for the Global Warming Policy Foundation that he is agnostic on climate change. His chief of staff while he was Prime Minister was the current Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos. Surely he would have been advising the Prime Minister. Even though the Prime Minister was agnostic on global warming and that we are affecting climate through our use of hydrocarbons, he must have been advised, presumably by Senator Sinodinos, to push these global-warming claims. That is the reason, in my view, why the farmers lost their property rights and still to this day have not been compensated. Some have committed suicide over the loss of their land, because it has made them unproductive. Others have paid the penalty and walked off. We have seen Queensland regions devastated by this.
The second thing I want to talk about is the global warming claims made by Senator Rice, a Greens senator. There is no empirical evidence anywhere, no hard data or physical observation, that shows there is anything unusual occurring at all in any aspect of climate—not temperatures, not rainfall, not snowfall, not drought severity, not drought frequency and not drought duration. We had longer and higher heatwaves in the 19th century, from the 1880s to the 1890s. We have seen no change in sea level at any of the longstanding—that is, 100-year—tidal gauges around this country and, in fact, in many places around the world. Storm severity, frequency and duration are not changing. In fact, North America and Australia have had a lull in storms in recent years.
Yields of corn, wheat and other crops are actually increasing. In fact, every crop is carbon based. Its core cellular biology is carbon. It is essential for all life on earth. We do not need to have a low-carbon economy. In fact, a low-carbon economy is false and impossible because every cell in that Greens senator's body contains carbon. Every cell in every food she eats contains carbon. It is absolute nonsense to say that the seasons are unnaturally varying in their growing duration. There is no warming going on at all. There is nothing unusual in the temperatures. It is entirely cyclical. That is what the evidence and the hard data show.
What is more, the evidence, the hard data and physical observations confirm not only that we are not affecting the climate through our use of hydrocarbons but also that we cannot affect our climate through the use of hydrocarbons. In fact, the Greens senator raised a question about Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. Then Senator Joyce told me in a meeting in his office in St George, Queensland, that overwhelmingly the coalition members of parliament and if not all members of his party, the National Party, then certainly almost all members of the National Party in parliament were sceptical of claims that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. He thinks it is nonsense. In fact, he went on many, many times to say that the notion that we can affect the global climate from a room in Canberra is absurd. The transition to what the Greens fancifully call 'a low-carbon economy' is essentially a transition to the death of our economy. It is quite ironic that everything naturally green on this planet depends on carbon dioxide. We commend the government for moving this motion and amending this bill, and we support it.
The farm household allowance program provides up to three years of income support for eligible farmers and farmers' partners while they take steps to improve their long-term financial situation. FHA recipients also have access to a number of other government supports, such as healthcare cards, pharmaceuticals allowance, rent allowance, telephone allowance, energy supplement and remote area allowance.
The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 demonstrates that the government continues to be responsive to the needs of the farm communities in rural and regional Australia. Further, the bill demonstrates our willingness to streamline the assessment of farm household allowance applications where appropriate and where possible. We pride ourselves on having a program of continuous improvement. These changes that we seek to legislate today are to support ministerial rulings that have been given by the Deputy Prime Minister in support of the flexibility that we believe we should be affording our farming community when they get into situations, often—just about always—not of their own doing, where they are suffering significant financial difficulties.
The bill continues that improvement of the farm household allowance program by seeking to put into legislation a series of changes. Farm household allowance applicants and recipients will benefit, we believe, because clarifying the eligibility test to apply for this support and removing unnecessary waiting periods will be of significant benefit to those people who are in need.
This bill seeks to clarify the treatment of the assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise under the act and includes them within the farm assets test. It also removes the requirement for successful farm household allowance recipients to serve an ordinary waiting period or a liquid assets waiting period before they receive their payments. The bill also addresses community concerns relating to the time taken to process applications for farm household allowance and the treatment of water assets and shares in marketing cooperatives as non-farm assets rather than as farm assets which are necessary for the operation of the farming business. The cost of this particular action is negligible.
I thank all of the senators who have made a contribution today for their support in relation to this bill. I have to make a couple of comments in relation to some of the comments that were made. Firstly, in relation to the comments that were made by the Labor Party, which sought to politicise what has been a pretty important change in support of our farmers. Whilst they were the ones who actually abolished a number of things under their previous administration, not the least of which was cutting the budget of the department of agriculture in half, they then come in here and have a political swipe in relation to something that Minister Joyce had said, which I thought was pretty cheap.
In relation to Senator Roberts from One Nation and Senator Rice from the Greens, I think they probably counteracted each other. One said one thing and one said the complete polar opposite. I am sure the truth of the matter probably resides somewhere in the middle.
Before I finish, I congratulate and thank Senator Bridget McKenzie for the huge amount of work that she did in rural and regional Victoria particularly, in trying to get a very, very detailed assessment of the impacts of this particular measure and how it could be improved so that we can assist our farmers in a better way. Senator McKenzie's work has enabled us, when we made the changes to this particular legislation that we are proposing today, to make it far better informed from the grassroots of our farming community. The roundtables have certainly been of major assistance to us.
I thank everybody for their contribution to this debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
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.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016. Labor will support this bill but makes three minor technical changes to the administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Given the government's growing list of tech failures, I state from the outset that we will be keeping our eye on the rollout of these changes.
Firstly, this bill allows the Minister for Health, the Secretary of the Department of Health and the Chief Executive of Medicare to delegate administrative actions, including decision making, to computer programs. This will allow for automated online processing of PBS claims so that pharmacists do not have to submit hard copy prescriptions to the Department of Human Services for reconciliation. It will also allow approvals for certain prescriptions to be granted online rather than on the phone or in writing, as at present.
As mentioned, the government has an appalling track record on IT—in fact, it is really quite embarrassing. There is not a business out there that could get away with as many digital failures as this government has. So I do want to flag that we will be watching the rollout of the computerised decision making very, very closely. We do not want the rollout of this technology to have the same fate as all of the other IT projects the government has bungled like the census, the Centrelink debt debacle and the availability of Medicare and PBS data on data.gov.au.
That said, I acknowledge that this bill includes safeguards. The minister, secretary and chief executive will remain responsible for decisions made on their behalf by the computer programs. The minister, secretary and chief executive will be able to override a decision made by a computer program. Decisions that are currently reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will remain reviewable regardless of whether they are made by a computer program.
The bill also allows pharmacists whose premises have been affected by disaster or exceptional circumstances like a flood or fire to supply pharmaceutical benefits nearby at an alternative premises for up to six months. Affected pharmacists will apply to the secretary of the health department for permission to operate from alternative premises. The secretary will exercise discretion over whether the usual premises have been affected by a disaster or exceptional circumstances, whether the alternative premises are substantially in the same location and other administrative questions.
The bill is intended to help maintain access to medicines for communities that have been affected by disasters or exceptional circumstances—and we are thinking about all our fellow Australians in the north of Queensland at this time. It will also improve arrangements for affected pharmacists, who are currently required to submit a full pharmacy application for temporary premises and are only paid 90 per cent of the value of claims until that application is approved.
The bill also clarifies that PBS benefits can be provided to concessional beneficiaries and their dependants on the day of their death. A quirk in the current law provides that benefits cease on the day prior to death, consistent with social security legislation, because in that case other social security benefits apply from the date of death. These are largely administrative changes which have been welcomed by stakeholders across the sector.
This bill makes three minor improvements to the administration of the PBS, but it does nothing about the real threat to the PBS, which is the government's plan to increase the price of every medicine by up to $5. This is a zombie measure from the notorious 2014 budget that the government refuses to kill off. In the horror budget of 2014 the government announced cuts of $1.3 billion from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to be achieved by increasing co-payments and safety net thresholds. The measure includes increasing co-payments for general patients by $5 and for concessional patients by 80c. Labor has consistently fought this cut, and so far we have prevented it from becoming law. Despite this, the Prime Minister included the PBS price hike in his 2016 budget, a clear signal of his commitment to continue with this measure.
The most vulnerable—the poor, elderly and sick—will be worst hit by the Liberals' plans to cut the PBS. For example, a general patient filling two prescriptions per month will be $100 per year worse off on medicines alone. The more expensive medicines become, the less likely people are to fill their prescriptions. The latest Bureau of Statistics patient experience survey shows that up to 10 per cent of people already delay or avoid filling a prescription due to the cost. Thanks to this out-of-touch government, we are already seeing people skip seeing their doctor, and pretty soon we will start to see people living in areas of greatest disadvantage skipping out on getting their prescriptions filled. This goes against everything our universal healthcare system is supposed to represent.
During the federal election campaign, Labor committed to reversing the Prime Minister's plan to raise the price of vital medicines. Millions of Australians voted against the Prime Minister's price hikes to medicines and his other health cuts. But he has not listened. It is time for the Prime Minister to listen to the people of Australia and drop his plan to raise the price of medicines. Vulnerable Australians struggling to get by each week should not have to weigh up paying for their medicines or paying for groceries.
While Labor supports the passage of the legislation to make minor improvements to the administration of the PBS, we once again call on the Prime Minister to drop his plan to raise the price of medicines. Affordable medicine is at the heart of Medicare and our universal healthcare system, and Labor will continue to fight against any increase. We will fight to protect vulnerable Australians.
The changes in this bill remind us that, while we rely on the PBS to provide access to increasingly complex medicines for our health, it is also important that the PBS itself undergoes continual improvement and embraces new technologies. Enabling the use of computer decision-making provides the opportunity for the PBS to move from computer assisted processing to fully automated online transactions and approvals.
The ability to obtain most PBS authority approvals online in real time will benefit every medical practice. It will allow doctors to use some of the time otherwise spent on telephone calls as additional time for caring for patients. On a similar basis, automated online processing for pharmacy claims will reduce administrative work and payment times for pharmacists.
Many organisations were consulted regarding the measures in this bill. These included pharmacy, medical consumer, pharmaceutical industry and medical software peak bodies, and I say to them: your participation in and contribution to this process has been appreciated.
The amendments proposed today will deliver efficiencies that will improve the operation of the PBS. The changes reflect the government's commitment to digital health services and to reducing red tape. The changes are necessary and practical. They will benefit prescribers and pharmacists directly and benefit patients by reducing the administrative work of doctors. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has said that these are commonsense changes. We can only agree. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
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.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports this bill. We have been calling for a VET ombudsman for a long time now, and we took this policy to the last election. This is because Labor understands that students need someone in their corner to stand up for them and their rights. We know that there are dodgy providers engaging in bad practices in the vocational education sector, and students need someone who will fight for them.
Labor have always stuck up for students and we always will. We are glad to see the government adopting yet another one of our policies, to this end. And it is about time. The unfair situation that many students have found themselves in is the result of this government's neglect. They were simply not paying attention to the VET system. They ignored all of the warning signs, concerns and complaints while they were busy changing ministers five times. The system has fallen into crisis on the Liberals' watch. VET FEE-HELP loans have blown out from around $700 million in 2013 to a staggering $2.9 billion in 2015.
Make no mistake, Labor has led the way on this debate. Fifteen months ago we moved to establish a VET ombudsman in this place. At that time, the minister said he would look into it and promised that the idea would be progressed, and late last year, when the government introduced their VET Student Loans Bill, the assistant minister said that the government would establish an ombudsman. Labor was glad to finally see some action. But a closer look at the bills revealed absolutely nothing about establishing an ombudsman. After a whole year of promised progress, including the issuance of a discussion paper seeking feedback from the sector on the idea of establishing an ombudsman, there was nothing—even though the RIS for these bills noted the concept of creating an ombudsman was the single most popular idea put forward by the government in their discussion paper, and even though students, providers and consumer advocates were all calling for an ombudsman.
It fell to Labor to step up and take action to protect students. It fell to Labor to move an amendment to establish an ombudsman, at which time the government again made yet another promise and undertook to return to the parliament with standalone legislation. They may have been dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing, but Labor are pleased this legislation is before us today, and we are glad to support the implementation of one of our election promises.
Labor knows how important the broader debate on skills, training and jobs is. Just last month, the Leader of the Opposition hosted a national summit to bring business, government, TAFE, unions and providers together. We know that Australia needs long-term policy solutions for opportunities, jobs and the economy. Labor are putting in the work to ensure that we have a plan to skill our local workforce for the jobs of the future. There are longer-term reforms that we should consider in this place. We know that the establishment of an ombudsman has been strongly supported by stakeholders, consumer law advocates, providers and, of course, by students. Indeed, many have argued for an ombudsman who has a broader remit beyond the loans scheme, or holds powers of arbitration. Labor believes these ideas have merit and should remain under consideration as part of the long-term reforms to the VET system that are so desperately needed.
Labor believes the government have brought forward this legislation in good faith, and that the government and the department will use the powers available to make sure the ombudsman operates effectively. Labor expects to see the recommendations of the ombudsman respected and heavy punishment for any providers that do not cooperate. Because students must come first. Their rights must be protected.
The government is on notice here. There are many thousands of students who have been treated wrongly in recent years, and Labor expects to see results from this ombudsman. Labor has always said that effective implementation will be what makes or breaks the government's VET reforms. They owe it to students and to all the providers who are working hard and doing the right thing to make the changes they have and to make sure these changes are implemented in the interests of the sector and of students.
I rise today to speak on behalf of the Australian Greens in support of this piece of this legislation before us. The Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2017, creating a Commonwealth ombudsman position which would oversee the VET loan system, is absolutely essential.
I would say from the outset that I think it is important we do not see this as the only way that this ombudsman role could operate. The Greens, along with many stakeholders, believe that this could and should become part of an expanded ombudsman role that would look at and oversee the broader VET sector, but this legislation is an important first step and something that has been called for time and time again. It is as a result of the significant amount of rorting that has happened within the VET sector and, indeed, in relation to the flawed and abysmal VET FEE-HELP system that was established under the previous Labor government and then continued under the Abbott-Turnbull government.
Right from the word go—the moment the Labor Party deregulated this system—there were warning signs and the ringing of warning bells that should have been heard and responded to. But, of course, we saw nothing from the Labor Party at the time, and then it took years for this government to act. The result of that has been a system that has blown out in budgetary terms from something like $329 million, which is what it was originally listed at, to well over $2 billion—in fact, $2.9 billion, just short of $3 billion. That is how much the budget for the VET FEE-HELP system blew out under this government. That is because the moment the system was deregulated and the moment it was seen by dodgy providers as an opportunity to make money rather than to provide an educational experience for students, some providers took that dodgy path and exploited it for everything it was worth. This created a system where for-profit private providers were setting up dodgy courses, some of which did not really even exist, signing up students who did not even know they were being signed into courses and reaping hundreds of thousands, millions and billions of dollars from the Australian taxpayer. It has been an absolute shambles and a disgrace that this system was able to continue the way it was.
Frankly, one of the things that have not been answered through this whole process is: who in the education department here in Canberra knew what was going on? Who in the education department knew that this system was being rorted, that people were making billions and billions of dollars from the Australian taxpayer, and yet no-one said a word and no-one acted until it started to break through into media and public awareness? Someone in the Department of Education and Training is covering somebody else's backside, because I do not see how you can get from having a loan system for courses that is budgeted at $329 million to it then all of a sudden costing the Australian taxpayer almost $3 billion. Are you trying to tell me that no-one in the education department or the various ministers' offices knew this was going on? It is just not believable.
It is good that we have seen the system cleaned up—that there is now action to clean that up and to put in place proper oversight. But, boy oh boy, someone knew this was going on, and they have not been held to account. In years to come, I am sure we will find out just who was scratching whose back in order to cover up such a shambles that was going on for years out of the education department, with these private for-profit providers reaping so much money from the Australian taxpayer coffers to provide them with huge profits under the dodgy auspice of offering VET courses.
Of course, it is the students themselves who have been left high and dry as result of this absolute balls-up of both the previous Labor government and the Turnbull-Abbott government. It is the students themselves who have really copped it as a result of this. The quality of courses has dropped. We know that students have been left with thousands of dollars worth of debt, which some students did not even know they were going to be signed up for.
The role of a Commonwealth ombudsman to oversee this system is absolutely essential because these for-profit dodgy providers have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and the Commonwealth education department has proved itself to be absolutely incompetent to manage and foresee the dodginess and the rorting that was going on. So it is essential that this ombudsman role is created, but we need to make sure that it acts with teeth and with integrity. To that point, one of the things that I urge the federal Minister for Education and Training, Minister Birmingham, and his department to do is to really look at how we can have proper powers of arbitration included in this role of an ombudsman and also to consider how it can be broadened beyond the loan system, because, if these dodgy providers can get away with it, they will. That is what we have seen. The proof is in the pudding. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been ripped off the Australian taxpayer and ripped out of the pockets of students and have gone straight into the pockets of these dodgy providers as profit, and they need to be held to account.
The creation of a Commonwealth ombudsman to clean up this system and to provide proper independent oversight—because clearly the Commonwealth government and the departments cannot be trusted to be competent enough to do it themselves—was an election promise that the Australian Greens took to the campaign. We are glad to see that now both the Australian Labor Party—despite the fact that they were the government at the time who put in place this dodgy system—and the government of the day, the Abbott-Turnbull government, have seen that a Commonwealth ombudsman is indeed essential and needs to be created. I also give kudos where kudos is due. I believe that the education minister has acted in a fairly timely way following his promise of introducing an ombudsman. It is only a few sitting weeks on that we are now seeing this legislation before us and can have it passed into law today.
I commend the bill to the chamber, but I say: let us not have the finger-pointing across both sides of the chamber here. This system, this dodgy, rorting system, was established by the Labor Party and continued by the Liberal-National coalition. Both sides sat back while the rorting got out of control. They sat back while hundreds of millions of dollars were sucked out of the taxpayer coffers and hundreds of thousands of students were screwed over. Both sides of government in this place sat back and did nothing for far too long. And we know that not one person in the Commonwealth education department has been put up and held responsible for this system getting totally out of hand. It is not something we are going to forget. We are going to continue to prosecute just who knew inside the Commonwealth education department that this was going on and why on earth they stayed so silent for so long.
I am pleased to be able to stand up today to support the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017. A quality education is the best opportunity anyone can get to improve their life. While for some it is a university education, for many others it is a vocational education at TAFE or other training organisations. However, over the past few years we have heard numerous stories about dodgy and unscrupulous providers who have taken large amounts of funds in payments yet have delivered little meaningful training. Students and the Labor Party have been crying out for a VET Student Loans Ombudsman to act on the complaints of students and to bring some fairness back to the sector.
Education is an issue that I have had a particular interest in for many years, firstly through my employment background as an early childhood educator and currently as a member of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee. When I worked for the Australian Services Union, I was also their Tasmanian representative on a number of industry training boards. I wrote curriculum for early childhood education. I helped implement traineeships into local government in Tasmania for the very first time. So I have had quite a broad interest in education for many years.
This bill consists of two schedules. The first schedule amends the Ombudsman Act 1976 to insert a new part IIE, establishing the office of the VET student loans ombudsman. It also makes consequential amendments to the Ombudsman Act and the VET Student Loans Act 2016. The second schedule amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001, the ARC Act, to update indexation against appropriate funding caps for existing legislated amounts and includes an additional forward estimates amount.
Back in November last year, I spoke in this place on the VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016. I welcomed the government's commitment to creating a VET student loans ombudsman. Labor have been calling for a VET ombudsman for a long time and we took a policy of establishing an ombudsman to the last election, because we know that students need someone in their corner to stand up for their rights and to fight back against bad practices and the dodgy providers. Labor have always stuck up for students and we are glad to see the government adopting another one of our policies to this end. Unfortunately, an unfair system was allowed to flourish because those opposite were simply not paying attention to the VET system and were too busy changing ministers—I think we are up to No. 5 at the moment. While we would like to believe that dodgy providers do not exist, unfortunately we have heard too many stories, including in my home state of Tasmania. Back in March 2015, when speaking on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015, I told the story of a Tasmanian student, Jake Wright, and his experiences with a registered training organisation. Jake was pretty excited when he signed up for a double diploma of business and management with Careers Australia, but he was completely out of his depth and contacted a tutor, who advised him to watch YouTube videos. Jake said:
I found them quite hard to understand and when I actually asked him if he could assist me at all he just told me to watch the videos and I said, 'I've watched them, I can't do the work.'
Jake's mother, Lexia Brown, helped him unenrol, but not before he had racked up a VET debt of more than $8,000. His mother said:
Even under supervision he would not be able to do it. He can do many other things but not a double diploma in business and management.
Unfortunately, there are many thousands of stories like Jake's from around Australia.
So, as I said, we are very pleased that, finally, the government are putting in place the systems and the resources to help students who have been victims of dodgy private VET providers. Fifteen months ago, Labor moved to establish a VET ombudsman in the Senate. At that time, the minister said he would look into it and promised to 'progress' the idea. Late last year, when the government introduced the VET student loans bills, the assistant minister said in her second reading speech that the government would establish an ombudsman. Unfortunately, though, the government had not included the establishment of an ombudsman in those bills. Who knows why? In November last year, it had been a year since the government promised to 'look into it', and so surely they could have done it then, but at least they are doing it now, so we are pretty happy about that. We know the idea of an ombudsman is an extremely popular one because students, providers and consumer advocates have all been calling for an ombudsman for quite some time. So it fell to Labor to move an amendment to establish an ombudsman, at which time the government again gave an undertaking to come back to the parliament with standalone legislation.
The government have been dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing, but, as I say, Labor are pleased to see the legislation in the parliament today, and we will keep leading the broader debate on skills and training. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, hosted a national summit in March to bring business, government, TAFE, unions and providers together to work on long-term policy solutions for opportunity, jobs and the economy. Through Senate inquiries and in public debate, stakeholders have strongly supported the idea of an ombudsman, from consumer law advocates to providers and, of course, those most affected: the students. Many have argued strongly for an ombudsman with a broad remit beyond the loans scheme or with powers of arbitration. I believe these ideas have merit and should remain under consideration as part of the longer term reforms to the VET system that are so needed to make sure it better meets the needs of students and businesses. Labor believes that the government has brought this legislation forward in good faith and that both the government and the department will use the powers available to make sure the ombudsman operates effectively. And we expect to see the recommendations of the ombudsman respected and heavy punishment for any providers who do not cooperate—because students have to come first. The government is on notice. There are many thousands of students who have been treated wrongly in recent years and Labor expects to see results. Labor has always said that effective implementation will be what makes or breaks the government's VET reforms. It owes it to students and to all the providers who are working hard and doing the right thing to make the changes work.
Unfortunately, the system has fallen into crisis under the Liberals' watch. In 2014, the graduation rate for the 10 largest private providers was under five per cent, with $900 million in federal money spent, or over $215,000 for every graduate. Students have been tricked into racking up massive debts for courses that offer little hope of leading to a job. We all heard about students being signed up to a course with the promise of a new iPad or a laptop without knowing or understanding that they were actually signing up to thousands of dollars worth of debt. Around 10,000 qualifications were cancelled in Victoria alone because they were not worth the paper they were written on. We have seen an explosion in short courses and online courses and, I am sorry to say, a decline in quality. It is estimated up to 40 per cent of VET FEE-HELP loans will never be repaid, and much of this is because of the government's inaction. Most ridiculously, there have even been reports of students being offered online training as a jockey, without riding a horse—we can see how successfully that might work out—and students have been signed up to loans without even knowing they had been signed up. The vocational education sector has been mismanaged by this government. VET FEE-HELP loans have blown out from about $700 million in 2013 to a staggering $2.9 billion in 2015. Unfortunately, the government just let this explosion happen. How can they possibly justify to taxpayers their failure to do anything about it?
As I said earlier, Labor is the party that is committed to the vocational education sector. We have fought for it over many decades. Late last year, the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Ms Andrews, the member for McPherson, questioned whether the national partnership for skills agreement was even needed in the future. She said she was meeting with the states 'to determine whether there are reforms to VET that warrant a new agreement'. This is very concerning. The current national partnership, put in place by Labor, expires in the middle of this year. Over $500 million a year in Commonwealth support for TAFE and skills is on the line, and the minister does not even seem to know whether a new agreement is needed to continue supporting TAFE. We must rebuild TAFE for the future.
Between 2013 and 2015 the Liberals oversaw a 21 per cent decline in TAFE enrolments and an almost 75 per cent decline in TAFE and VET capital investment. Apprenticeship numbers are in freefall under the Liberals. Since the Liberals came to government, those numbers have gone down by 30 per cent—that is, 130,000 fewer apprenticeships. Let me remind you: we have been very clear on this side that we back public TAFE. That is why we took a TAFE funding guarantee to the last election and why Bill Shorten committed at the Press Club earlier this year to put quality TAFE back at the heart of our VET system. TAFE is where people get the technical and semi-professional skills they need for growing industries—the skills that are being demanded by industry and the skills Australia needs to be competitive with other countries. TAFE is the backbone of our apprenticeship system.
Generations of Australians know how important TAFE is for our economy, and they know the first-class skills and opportunities that going to TAFE can provide—but the Liberals just don't get it. At a state and federal level, the Liberals have an ideological problem with TAFE. Before the last election, Labor promised to undertake a comprehensive National Vocational Education and Training Sector Review to build a stronger VET sector and weed out dodgy providers and student rip-offs. Labor's review will ensure that the VET sector is properly equipped to train Australians for the jobs of the future, proper standards are enforced and the central role of our public TAFE system is recognised.
Our national skills and training sector used to be the envy of the world. I remember back in the mid- to late-seventies, when I left college, TAFE was such a great place for people to go to increase their skills, to get an apprenticeship and to have jobs into the future. One of the interesting things I see now is that all of the people who did apprenticeships back then—all the builders, plumbers and electricians that I know—have all got more work at the minute than they know what to do with. I think that is great but it shows us—as they all say to me—that we do not have enough apprenticeships and that we need to make sure that there are more apprenticeships. Our national skills and training sector, as I said, used to be the envy of the world, but since the election of the Liberal government it has been significantly damaged by shonks and sharks ripping off vulnerable people. People's livelihoods are being destroyed and their job prospects ruined. It is an absolute disgrace, and action has to be taken.
Having a strong VET sector is an important part of Labor's plan to tackle inequality. The vocational education and training sector deserves a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to policy-making to ensure it is fit for the critical task of preparing Australians for the jobs of the future. While schools and universities have had full reviews into funding with the Gonski and Bradley reviews, the vocational education and training sector has been left behind. The sector has not undergone a full review since the Kangan report in 1974. It is time for a full review of the operation of the sector, including quality, funding and access. As new jobs emerge and existing industries go through extensive restructuring, the nation will rely on an effective, quality vocational sector to provide the qualifications to enable people to enter the workforce, upskill or retrain.
As I mentioned earlier, the second schedule of this bill amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001. The amendment updates the funding profile for major Australian Research Council grant programs and is supported by us on this side of the chamber. Previously, this kind of basic, administrative change was held up by the coalition's attempts to pass its unfair and unpopular $100,000 degrees legislation. One of the drivers of Australia's success in research has been the provision of both competitive grant funding and programs and a long-term, stable block grant that allows universities to invest strategically in research in ways which foster its future development. Research funded by the Australian Research Council allows Australia's thinkers to produce outcomes that will help our country become more creative, productive and resilient and also better equipped to face and understand the challenges of the 21st century. Labor knows that economies and societies which invest more in research will generally show faster rates of growth in output and human development. The Abbott-Turnbull government sought to cut almost $900 million from science and research in its first budget. This included $75 million from the Australian Research Council.
In closing, Labor has been calling for the introduction of a VET ombudsman for a long time. Students in our VET sector need the support of an ombudsman in their court if they fall prey to unscrupulous training providers. I urge this chamber to support the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2017.
I wish to address my remarks to schedule 2 of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2017, which sets out the indexation funding caps for the Australian Research Council. The government has tried to use this updating of caps as an opportunity to boast about its commitment to research. It is a hollow boast at best. As I have said for some time now, this is a government that has substantially reduced the amount of money that is available for science, research and innovation. In fact, about $3 billion has been taken from science, research and innovation programs, and that includes $75 million from the ARC budget in the 2014 budget. I have argued that this budget ripped some $900 million specifically from science and research programs, not just $75 million from the ARC, $115 million from CSIRO; $27 million from ANSTO; $7.8 million from the marine institute; $16 million from Geoscience; $10 million from the Bureau of Meteorology; $120 million from the Defence Science and Technology Group; and $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which is a 10 per cent cut.
Initially we saw a government that did not even appoint a science minister. Now, some four years after this government came to office, we have an opportunity to look at the detail of what the consequences of those reductions have been. We know that in terms of the science agencies there are 1,700 fewer scientists employed in the government agencies. We also know that, when we look at the science, research and innovation tables, in real terms the total government spend is now down by $453 million. That is a real figure, not a notional one. The ARC itself has lost $187 million between 2013-14 and 2016-17.
This is a proposition which means that there is less money available for research, from a government that claims it is suddenly interested in research, a government that has had monumental failure after monumental failure in terms of the research agenda of this country—a government that cannot even announce the appointment of the new CEO for the ARC. There is no doubt that that the acting CEO, Leanne Harvey, is performing in an admirable way. She is a woman who I have worked with directly and I have enormous regard for, but it has been 10 months since the former CEO announced that he was going. It has been a month since the minister, Senator Birmingham, told the estimates committee that an announcement was imminent. We know how important the research sector is and how important it is to have a CEO who has the confidence of the sector, and that means that they need to be a permanent appointment. We need to have a CEO with specialist knowledge and experience that the sector acknowledges will be there on an ongoing basis.
What we have seen, though, in this government's approach to research, is that it has to be research for a commercial basis. The emphasis now is on turning a quick quid. This is an undermining of basic research; an undermining of the fundamental principles of research integrity; an undermining of the principles of peer review; an undermining of what we have come to understand as the important questions that come to the role of the research community in assisting this parliament, and all governments, to face up to the big questions that are confronting this society. What we have seen is a government that says, 'What we need to do now is have a much higher emphasis on commercialisation.'
We have gone from a situation where we had no science minister at all, for much of the first term of the government, to a point where we now have had three science ministers in 12 months. Suddenly, the latest science minister has rediscovered climate change and rediscovered the importance of expert advice. That comes just a month after claiming that One Nation are a more knowledgeable and a more sophisticated operation, despite their attitudes and a whole range of fundamentally unscientific approaches to life, including that on vaccinations.
The ARC has developed a new impact and engagement model to research funding. These are particularly concerning, given the experience we have seen in the United Kingdom. The Stern review and the United Kingdom's Research Excellence Framework found that these types of exercises have imposed immense costs on our universities. A review of the Research Excellence Framework in the United Kingdom found that the estimated cost of running the so-called impact studies in 2014 was 246 million pounds, and 212 million pounds were borne by the higher education community in the process of preparing their submissions alone, for their so-called impact study.
The utility of the impact assessments, exercises like that undertaken in the United Kingdom, has been heavily criticised. Yet the government in Australia is ploughing on. Despite all the rhetoric about the importance of the science and the so-called platitudinous statements that we saw last week from the government, we never actually understood the implications of the relationship between basic and pure scientific research and the need to have commercialisation in a proper context.
Of course, without proper funding and without proper support for basic research, we will not have the capacity to ensure that we have the research that can be commercialised in later times. We see this particularly with the Education Investment Fund, which the government has said that it wants to abolish. We saw in the last parliament the attempt to use the investment fund for the privatisation of roads. We are fortunate that this Senate said that the asset recycling program was not a proper use for the investment funds, which were put aside for education funding, for research funding and for TAFE funding. A proposition that I moved was accepted by the Senate, and the proposals were rejected.
The government then went around the university sector and said, 'By executive fiat we will transfer monies to disabilities.' They said so in December, in the MYEFO statements, claiming that that had been done. Of course, it could not be done, because they needed to have a legislative instrument. You cannot willy-nilly take away these designated funds in the manner in which the government was proposing to do. This was in the context where the government itself had established a series of reviews into the importance of research funding. There was the Higher Education Infrastructure Working Group, which reported in 2015. It was by Bradley and co. There was the Research Infrastructure Review final report by Clark and co. that reported in September 2015. There was the draft National Research Infrastructure Roadmap, which reported in 2016. It had consultations over the Christmas period this year and through to 2017. No money was attached to it, of course.
In this same context, where these issues were developed and demonstrated to be needed in various reviews that the government had initiated, no money was actually put aside. But the very money that was available through the investment fund was to be taken away, to be used first for the privatisation program and now, it is said, for the disability program and for paying down debt. It was to be done by executive fiat. That has been demonstrated to be completely incorrect, because as we discovered in January—the finance department acknowledged in the estimates hearing—it could not be done without legislative approval.
It poses a much more fundamental question than the government's sleight of hand. A question was posed by the Bradley review:
The question needs to be asked why government no longer believes that it has any role to play in this form of nation building.
The review is specifically referring to the question of funding of research infrastructure. The fundamental proposition of research infrastructure at this time is that the government has sought to constantly seek someone else to undertake its responsibilities. It has set up a whole series of reviews. It has sought to delay any commitment. Essentially, it has failed to deal with its responsibilities by ignoring the need to fund a long-term research infrastructure plan for the country. There is no doubt there is a legitimate, an urgent and very much a real need to fund our research infrastructure so that we can develop the new knowledge, the new technologies and the new jobs to keep us an advanced industrial society. We have had highly qualified expert panels established, but the situation continues to deteriorate. The government thinks that it is enough to set up yet another review. This is a government that loves reviews: it means it can avoid having to make a decision.
We have emerging a funding cliff, a funding uncertainty in our universities and our public research agencies, while all the time a $3.7 billion fund is sitting on the government's book and not being used. It is collecting basic interest, and that is all. It is a farce. The fund was established—part of the Future Fund arrangements—precisely for this purpose. The uncommitted funds of $3.7 billion are exactly the sum that the expert panel identifies as the shortfall that the country needs for research funding at the moment. The Clark review makes the point that the government has this responsibility and has failed to fulfil its obligations in that regard. The government has set up a road map with no commitment to fund any arrangements under it. It is an exercise in fantasy to ask people, 'What would you like to do?' but not provide the money to actually do it. So an urgent task is acknowledged by the government but no provision is made to fund it.
The Clark review, for instance, acknowledges that the nation needs advanced research. The conduct of advanced research requires research infrastructure. The more sophisticated the infrastructure the greater the potential for breakthrough research. In the case of cutting edge landmark facilities, the scale of resources required, the uncertainty of commercial payoff and the long lead time for results all mitigate against individual businesses making the investment. Research infrastructure investment must be made collectively, typically by the nation or groups of nations, for the use of bona fide researchers. And so it goes on. The Clark review says:
Research generates knowledge, the use of which benefits society and opens up new opportunities for business.
The ability to sustain a competitive edge in the generation of new knowledge, and of new scientific knowledge in particular, is at the core of the strategic plans of many nations as they position themselves for growth in a highly competitive global economy. Some countries started decades ago …
… … …
In contrast, the Australian research system is feeling the pressure of the chronic underfunding of key elements … countries investing in R&D are making the right choice. At the national level, multi-factor productivity growth is positively correlated to expenditure on R&D. The reverse holds true for countries with low levels of R&D expenditure.
So says the Clark review on the very first page of its report. It goes on:
To reach and maintain the necessary standards, we need the best researchers and they need quality research infrastructure.
A number of leading economies have recognised that quality research supported by quality infrastructure leads to jobs, growth and a more competitive economy.
That is on page 5.
Research infrastructure is an engine of economic growth and productivity. There are numerous examples of innovation and productivity outcomes from research infrastructure internationally and in Australia …
That is from page 6. This an argument that is not only internal to Australia but also related to our place in the global research effort, in which we are intimately engaged. The report says:
In a world in which research is increasingly undertaken across large teams of investigators from multiple countries, Australia will need to be a contributor to that effort to draw benefit. If we are to prosper as a strong but relatively small participant in the global wellspring of ideas and innovation, our contribution must be at the high standards required to earn us the connections that we need.
And so it goes on.
The reviews that the government established then tried to suppress demonstrate that there is an urgent need for action, which the government has yet to provide any support for. What we saw, of course, is that even the incoming Liberal government's 2014 National Commission of Audit endorsed the view about the importance of research infrastructure and the Commonwealth's role in funding it.
Quality research infrastructure is a critical component of Australia’s research and development system and, since 2001, the Commonwealth Government has provided a series of funding programmes for large-scale research infrastructure.
And it recommended:
… the Government take a more strategic, whole of government approach to the funding of research and development, including by:
… … …
… committing to ongoing funding for critical research infrastructure in Australia, informed by a reassessment of existing research infrastructure provision and requirements …
So it is not just people in the ARC. It is not just the people in government agencies. It is the government's own ideologically driven groups that are arguing this case. It is not just people on the left of politics that say that the future of the nation depends upon the capacity to actually build this capacity. It is right across the board, except within this cabinet. What we have is a failure of this government to recognise its national responsibility to the future prosperity of our nation. What we have in this government is a failure to come to terms with what it means to build prosperity and to build opportunities for Australians.
The minister made the point last week that we have to rely upon experts and we have to rely upon the importance of scientific research. Well, where does that come from? It does not come from reducing 1,700 scientists and by reducing the government's research budget. It does not come from the reduction in the ARC's funding by $187 million in real terms since this government came to office. It does not come from playing to the 'sophisticated' One Nation approach on climate change or on vaccinations, or playing footsies with those philistines that take the view that somehow or another all research must be moved immediately to make a financial return. Just imagine what we would do if we took that attitude towards the development of wi-fi? Wi-fi was one of the most transitional, most effective technologies this country and the world has seen. It is probably the hallmark technology of our age. It was developed as a result of research into examinations in astronomy of black holes. No-one, when they started on that project, would have said, 'We're going to create wi-fi out of this.' But, that is the type of exchange that is required. It happens so often in the research area.
The capacity that we have to develop, through major research infrastructure, new knowledge, new technologies, new jobs and new industries is, I think, of overwhelming importance to the future of the nation. Yet this is a government that has failed to provide the necessary wherewithal to allow our researchers to make their contribution to the future of this nation's prosperity. What we have is a government that has pandered to the anti-scientific lobby within our political system. This is a government that has failed to fulfil its obligations to modernity. This is a government that has shown a contempt for science. The recent rhetorical discovery, without the financial support necessary, means that there will be a continuation of the policies which have so undermined our scientific community in this country.
As a senator who serves the people of Queensland in Australia, I want to raise some questions. I will take this opportunity to do that. We have not had time to have a good look at the Australian Research Council programs, but we did notice this: the Australian Research Council has a Gender equality action plan. I thought that science is supposed to be objective. Regardless of gender or race or religion, science is assessed objectively, based on evidence and based on proposals for grants. I wonder, is this an admission that science under the control or the guidance of the Australian Research Council is not objective? Is it not at times policy-based science rather than what has been put forward in this chamber as science-based policy? I have mentioned in the past that universities in our country are now teaching people what to think, not how to think.
By my own personal experience with the Australian Research Council and holding it to account I have found very low levels of accountability. In this bill, taxpayer funds to the tune of $750 million—three quarters of a billion—are being given, in addition, to the Australian Research Council.
Contrary to Senator Carr's claims, One Nation believes in research. That is why we have based our position on climate and on the protection of our energy generation, availability and networks on hard, objective data—physical observations, measured data and hard facts. That is perhaps why we are alone in stating that that is what we do, because the others have never, ever—no other person and no other party in this chamber has ever—specified any specific objective evidence when it comes to their claims about the climate being affected by humanity's use of hydrocarbon fuels.
Senator Carr raises the uncertainty of university funding. Well, I raise issues of the need to seriously question the objectivity of the use for which the funds are provided. As I said, research is vital, and that is why we need to rethink and objectively assess what is happening with the billions of dollars that are spent by this parliament and by this government on research, because, in addition to research being vital, so are taxpayers. It is my belief that the taxpayers are being abused from many, many angles. I raise questions about the extra $750 million, the three-quarters of a billion dollars, set aside in this bill. Perhaps Ludwig von Mises's book entitled Bureaucracy would be instructive reading for people here in this chamber? It is only 100 pages long. He pointed out the importance of assessing things objectively and doing that in a free market. Instead, we are governed by a bureaucracy that is heading us more and more towards socialism in this country, and destroying accountability.
The final point I wish to raise is that there is legislation passing through this house at a very fast rate. Not all of us are expected to assess every piece of legislation—that would be unreasonable—but that makes it possible for central government in this country to waste enormous amounts of money, especially when there is very low accountability. We see the evidence for that in the ever-rising debt, the ever-growing deficit, the ever-growing waste of taxes, the ever-growing burden on individuals who are working hard. Our supporters have a strong moral compass and a strong work ethic, and they are very, very tired of the governance of this country—or should I say the lack of governance?
And then we see things like the climate change material—supposedly researched, but never ever specifying any empirical evidence or measured data—used to justify the destruction of South Australia, the imminent destruction of Victoria, and the slower but surer destruction of all states now pushing a renewable energy target. That was in fact introduced by former Prime Minister John Howard, who subsequently admitted to being agnostic on climate change. His then chief of staff is the current Senator Sinodinos, who is now Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Never have we seen so much money wasted so profligately in this country, and so destructively. I raise serious questions, but we will be supporting this bill.
I rise to sum up the debate on the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017, and I want to thank the contributors to the debate. In its essentials, there has been agreement over what the bill is all about, particularly in establishing a VET student loan ombudsman to investigate and act upon student VET FEE-HELP and VET student loan complaints. There is general agreement that that is the right way to go. Senator Birmingham, from when he became the minister, has been very strong on ensuring the matters around VET FEE-HELP were addressed. This was a system that the coalition inherited, and it was a system that needed to be fixed. It was the coalition that fixed it.
The bill also increases the funding caps in the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to continue the Turnbull government's strong support for thousands of research projects. The point I would make about that is that the Research Council and all of the other bodies that provide advice and make decisions in relation to the funding of research projects do so according to fairly clear and transparent criteria, and that is important. They have got to be criteria that are available to everybody to understand, and they have to be based on well-accepted postulates of the scientific method and the like. In other words, there has to be some general agreement about the methodology that will be pursued in undertaking research and then, of course, there is a matter of peer group assessment of proposals to make sure that these can be prioritised and all of the rest of it.
They are fairly open processes in relation to something like climate change, just to respond briefly to Senator Roberts's point. For policymakers, the important thing here is what is the 'no regrets' option? The no regrets option is to address an issue that scientific opinion, on the whole, is strongly of the view needs to be addressed, and sooner rather than later. What a policymaker does is weigh up the risks of not doing something as opposed to doing something. You may do something, and it turns out the problem was not there after all. I do not think in that sense you have done yourself great damage. But if you do not do something and the problem actually turns out to be catastrophic, you have done yourself and future generations a great deal of damage. That is the dilemma the policymakers face. On that score, I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
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.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. This bill seeks to amend means testing for youth allowance and Austudy recipients to make it consistent with other payments. It also creates an automatic entitlement and issue of a health care card to all recipients of youth allowance and Austudy.
Youth allowance is payable to students studying at university or TAFE, including Australian apprentices. Changes in this bill will align youth allowance and Austudy with existing rules for Abstudy, and other changes in this bill will also apply to Abstudy. This bill will also amend the Social Security Act 1991 to allow for the most recent Australian statistical geography standard remoteness structure to be applied when assessing whether an applicant for youth allowance lives remotely.
Schedule 1 amends means testing for student payments in a number of ways. Independent youth allowance and Austudy recipients are currently exempt from assets testing if they are a member of a couple and their partner receives an income support payment. This bill would remove the assets test exemption for this group of recipients. Current payment recipients will remain eligible for payment, unless they and their partner have assessable assets over $375,000.
Under existing legislation, independent youth allowance and Austudy recipients' interests in private trusts only are considered for means test purposes. This bill will make the means testing of interests held in private companies and trusts by independent youth allowance and Austudy recipients consistent with other income support payments. Currently any periodic gifts or allowances received by recipients of youth allowance or Austudy from family members are included in the means test. This bill will exempt these gifts from means testing.
Eligibility for dependent youth allowance recipients is subject to a parental income test. Currently, the parental income test does not include any tax-free pensions or benefits. This bill will change the parental income test to include tax-free pensions or benefits. This will make the test the same as the calculation of income for the purposes of family tax benefit. Families must report their income to the Department of Human Services annually for the calculation of family tax benefit. By making the two tests the same, the reporting burden on families and the department will be lessened.
This bill will create an automatic entitlement to a health care card for recipients of student payments. Student payment recipients are the only income support recipients who are not automatically entitled to receive a health care card. The health care card will entitle them to access the extended Medicare safety net threshold and discounted prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Student payment recipients who live in remote areas of Australia can be eligible for additional benefits, such as a relocation scholarship. The Social Security Act currently refers to the 2006 remoteness structure, which is now eleven years out of date. This bill will amend the Social Security Act to instead consider the most recent remoteness structure. It will amend the Social Security Act so that it automatically considers the most recent remoteness structure, instead of requiring a legislation amendment to this effect every five years.
Since the bill was introduced into the parliament in October last year, an amendment has been added—specifically, schedule 4. This amendment will make it easier for young people from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. Currently, students from regional or remote areas who need to move from their parental home to study can qualify as independent if, since leaving secondary school, they have:
In the 2016-17 financial year, this amount was equal to $24,042.
Their parents must also have earned less than $150,000 in the previous tax year.
This amendment will allow applicants from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent after only 14 months of paid employment, as per the other conditions above. Claimants can check whether their address is classified as regional or remote for youth allowance purposes on the Centrelink website. It is expected that around 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify as independent as a consequence of this change. It is argued that this measure will allow students to take a gap year following the completion of school and still qualify for youth allowance as an independent in time to commence study the following year.
Labor will support these changes to youth payments, which will ensure consistency across income support. Labor welcomes changes that will ensure that all recipients of youth allowance automatically receive a health care card. Making health care cards available to all independent recipients of student payments at least acknowledges in part that young people have limited earning potential while undertaking their studies. Labor also supports reducing the period regional and remote students are required to work before qualifying as independent and thereby become eligible sooner for youth support payments.
It can be a difficult and expensive for young people to move from the country to the city to study. There is a significant regional divide in the proportion of school leavers who go on to higher education. While 37 per cent of school leavers in major cities go on to study, this drops to 20 per cent in inner regional areas, 16 per cent in outer regional areas, 13 per cent in remote areas and just four per cent in very remote areas.
Labor remains deeply concerned about a whole range of cuts to young people that this Liberal government is trying to inflict on young Australians. If the National Party is hoping that this bill will placate young people and their parents in regional areas concerns about access to quality education and training, they should think again. The Turnbull government appears to be making it easier for regional and remote students on one hand, but on the other they will make it harder much harder by slashing penalty rates.
In order to be deemed independent in the 14 months, young people will have to earn $24,000. That is made much harder when your Sunday rates have been cut. The cut to penalty rates will mean that young people take longer to earn the required amount, and some will not be able to do it in 14 months at all. If this coalition genuinely wanted to support young people then they would not be cutting penalty rates and they would not be endlessly putting forward their 2014 zombie budget measures.
Last week their social services omnibus bill was passed in the other place before being subject to secret deals with the Senate crossbench before it came before us here in this place. When Senator Cormann was in this place last week he was clear that the zombie measures would be back. He said, and I quote:
... the government is persisting with them.
And then:
Today is the next instalment. Building on the progress that we made in the initial omnibus savings bill, we will be able to secure more savings today. There will be more work to do after today, but this is as far as we believe the Senate will be prepared to go on this occasion, and that is what we are putting forward.
This government have no intention of backing away from their zombie measures. He has made that clear.
These measures will push young people into poverty. In this current integration of the omnibus savings bill the government are proposing that jobseekers under the age of 25 wait five weeks without any income before grudgingly paying them their Newstart allowance. In the 2014 budget the Abbott-Turnbull government wanted to make young people wait six months before accessing any income support. A six-month wait is what they really wanted. Then they decided that one month might be acceptable, in addition to the existing one-week wait. There was no basis in evidence. They just made it up.
This Liberal government wants to leave young jobseekers under 25 with nothing to live on for five weeks—just fresh air. No amount of window-dressing can hide the fact that this Liberal government has consistently squeezed young people to carve out budget savings. The Turnbull government's plan abandons young jobseekers by leaving them with nothing to live on for five weeks, which will hurt tens of thousands of young Australians and do absolutely nothing to help them get a job. This coalition government wants to force young people aged from 22 to 24 onto a lower support payment, which is a cut of $48 a week—almost $2,500 a year. How are our young people expected to live off that type of income and keep themselves in the running for decent work? It is cruel and uncaring and completely uncalled for.
Last week, with the assistance of One Nation, the Xenophon Team and Senators Hinch and Leyonhjelm, the government froze the income-free areas for all working-age and student payments, which means that for three years the income test applying to jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the costs of living. With one hand the coalition are delivering young students some concessions—and we support those—but, with the other hand, they are working relentlessly to have their zombie measures passed and to cut penalty rates. This is what young people and students have to look forward to from this federal coalition working with those crossbench senators. This is the same government that want to hand over a $50 billion tax cut to big business. How do they reconcile that in the context of their 'budget repair' agenda?
We know that access to education and training is a key predictor of future prosperity. It is vitally important to ensure that all young people are in a position to be offered and to be able to take up opportunities. Forcing young people and their families into dire financial straits limits their access to education and training. Governments have a duty to account for disadvantage where it exists and to overcome it. Arbitrary markers like the privilege people are born into and the misfortune that families may encounter should never determine their access to education and training. The Liberal's elitist $100,000 degrees are a prime example of their disregard for principles of equity and fairness in education. Let us be very clear: this government want to make it harder for young Australians to go to university unless they have money. Labor believes that your parents' bank balance and their credit card limit should not determine whether or not you go to university.
TAFEs are fundamental anchoring institutions in our vocational education and training system. They provide opportunities for young people to get a vocationally-based education and set them up for good careers. They work collaboratively with local businesses to identify skill needs and then offer the courses that link young people into those jobs. They provide a quality, second-chance education for students who struggle in a school environment. They provide tailored and quality services to improve foundation education for community members. They are the trusted deliverers of quality vocational education in the system—unlike the rorting, unethical and profiteering providers exposed under VET FEE-HELP—and they are a particularly valued and important hub in regional and rural communities where they are often the key or sole provider of vocational education and training.
At the moment in this country we are witnessing the decline of TAFE. One-third of the TAFE workforce has been cut. We have seen institutes and colleges closing and the standards of facilities degraded and declining through lack of investment. The share of government VET funding for students going to TAFE dropped 20 per cent over the five years to 2015. But, despite all of that, they remain the institutions to trust—accountable and engaged in their local communities. What is this coalition government doing to ensure the future and sustainability of the TAFE workforce and TAFE infrastructure? I would think that the National Party would show some interest given the importance of TAFE to their constituents and to the prospects of young people in regional areas. What action have we seen? Nothing.
This government have been abrogating their responsibilities in failing to make new national partnership agreements on skills and workforce development and failing to work with the state governments to take action on TAFE. The current agreement expires at the end of June. The last meeting they held to discuss the issues, in November 2016, did not even achieve a quorum. How extraordinary! What did they do? Nothing. They may try to pretend that they are the students' best friends with this bill, but Labor knows the Liberals cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the interests of Australian students. If the government expect that young people are either earning or learning then it is their responsibility to ensure that the learning on offer is accessible, valuable and of high quality. If this government have their way, young people seeking a brighter future through their education and training will find it harder and harder to do so.
The government like to say how the measures in this bill will help students, but you do not hear them talk about all the cuts they are attempting to impose on young people or about their failure to support our key learning institutions. You do not hear them talk about plans to deregulate university fees; you do not hear them talk about the government's failure to fund the Gonski education reforms, which will ensure Australian children will get the best start in life; and you certainly have not heard them talk about their plan to support TAFEs, because they do not have one. Labor will support this bill today, but we will not lose sight of what this Liberal coalition government is really doing to young people: cuts to penalty rates, cuts to Newstart, cuts to universities, cuts to hospitals, cuts to apprentices and cuts to skills, and standing by while TAFEs are threatened. That is this government's terrible record on supporting young people. Labor will not forget it, and we will not stop fighting for young Australians.
I rise to speak today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017 here in the Senate, with a great sense of satisfaction and pride, supported by senators from across parties.
I am a proud member of a government that is focused on addressing the outcome gap between rural and regional students and city students accessing, in particular, in relation to this bill, higher education. Indeed, we are focused on improving regional education outcomes for all. As we know, there are three issues for regional students: firstly, access to higher education; secondly, increasing the aspiration of country kids to attend higher education; and the third barrier they need to overcome is that of achievement. When it comes to access, we need to ensure that they have online service provisions in their local communities. It is no good attending a local state school, where they have broadband and are able to do their school work, only to catch the bus home half an hour out of town and be unable to do their year 12 tasks in order to achieve the ATAR needed to attend the higher education institution they want to attend.
Firstly, this is about physical campuses in the regions—campuses attached to an urban university and, indeed, the regional university networks—and ensuring that we support them appropriately. Importantly, it is ensuring that we give those students who do choose to move away from home to study—because they should have exactly the same choices available to them that other year 12 students have—the financial support that they need. We know, from evidence given to us, that that is in excess of $30,000 per student per year to go and live in a capital city.
Secondly, in terms of increasing aspiration, that is a role for all communities. Young people need access to role models in their own communities and to aspire to something greater than maybe what they are living in their everyday lives. There are many, many students in the regions who make decisions about their futures based on what they see around them rather than being exposed to the variety of experiences that students in the city can avail themselves of.
Thirdly, with respect to achievement, what we do know about regional students is that they have a lower year 12 completion rate—it is very hard to get into university if you have not even completed year 12—and lower ATARs for those who do. That is not because kids from the country are any less able. I absolutely and categorically reject that. There is resilience, creativity and intellect that resides in the bright young things out in the regions. What restricts them and restricts their choices is not their capacity but a result of the system itself. It gives me great pride in the measures that we are bringing before the parliament today to address some of those systemic issues.
Turning to Senator Polley's tirade earlier: I am very proud of the government, because it is not just this suite of initiatives that it is focused on in addressing regional inequity in terms of educational outcomes. When we look at the previous initiatives brought before this parliament, we have taken farms out of the asset test for youth allowance. We are targeting those students who are from farming families so that that will be taken into account when assessing their eligibility for youth allowance. With child care in regional areas, our focus has been absolutely on low-income families who predominantly make up families in the regions. We are committed to a needs based funding model when it comes to school education, where rural and regionality is a key parameter in setting the government's funding model. I am very proud of that commitment from Minister Birmingham.
Today, we are substantially addressing the key findings of a series of forums that were held across regional Australia, from Port Augusta to Rockhampton and from Wangaratta to Narrabri. We heard about the need to simplify the process and that we needed to expand access to independent youth allowance. That those very students and families that we were seeking to assist were being cut out of getting the vital assistance that they needed to have the simple choice that every other young person in Australia has: 'Where do I want to go to study? How am I going to get there?'
The changes in this bill are a result of the hard work of so many coalition rural and regional MPs and senators. I would like to thank my dear colleague here in the chamber Senator Back for his continued advocacy in this space. I would also like to thank Nola Marino, Dan Tehan, Mark Coulton, Michael McCormack, Michelle Landry, Rick Wilson, Rowan Ramsey, Melissa Price, Luke Hartsuyker and many, many others over a long period of time for their dogged determination to not let this issue rest.
I will briefly go to some of the specific measures because I know we are very keen to pass this bill today. The schedule will amend the rules governing when a person is to be regarded as independent for youth allowance and relocation scholarship purposes by reducing—hallelujah, after a very long time—from 18 months to 14 months the period that young people from regional and remote Australia have to earn the amount required to satisfy the workforce independent provisions. So, for the very first time, a gap year will actually be a gap year for country kids. Typically, in the past they have had to wait 18 months—universities do not let you defer for 18 months; they only let you defer for 12 months. So there were a lot of complexities and decisions being made by young people from the regions who deferred their university—not to then attend when they were eligible to. We will not have to delay their commencement of study. Young people who finish year 12 in 2016 will be able to take advantage of the reduced period to meet workforce independence criteria for youth allowance before commencing their university or tertiary studies in early 2018. Approximately 3,700 students will qualify for youth allowance as independent under this measure, 2½ thousand of these qualifying four months sooner than under current arrangements. That is fantastic news.
The agenda to simplify student payments for the social security system is a welcome change. We heard evidence of the complexity of the process of applying for youth allowance. I remember one accountant father in Albany, WA saying that, if he was having trouble filling in the form as somebody with a CPA, what hope did others have? It almost seemed that you needed a degree before you had even got to O-week in order to access independent youth allowance. So the schedule simplifies the processes, adopting the latest version of the Australian statistical geographic standard. We also look at the family home, classified in a rural, regional and remote location, making sure that these changes are quarantined to those that need them most. I am so proud of this government for our careful and astute focus and targeted, strategic application of where taxpayers' funds go. We are putting it at the coalface where it is needed, not supporting those people in our community and those students who do not necessarily need this additional assistance.
There are a range of measures I will not go through, because I know others are keen to get going. This has been an incredibly long process. We have known the policy outcome—increasing educational participation by rural and regional students in higher education—sits with the Department of Education and the ministers for education and the financial assistance sits with ministers for social services. Sometimes it is a very siloed approach to government. We needed to get those people together and we did that a couple of years ago. I would like to thank all the ministers that have been on that journey with us for their capacity to come and engage with coalition rural and regional MPs and senators and to deliver outcomes over a long period of time. To former minister for education Pyne; former social service ministers Andrews and Minister Morrison; the current education minister, Senator Birmingham; and, indeed, the Minister for Social Services, Minister Porter for delivering real action on an issue of significant concern to so many within coalition ranks.
There is much more to be done in this space, and we are not resting on our laurels at all. The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, announced during the election campaign our commitment to holding an independent review into regional education to look at those other issues I touched on at the beginning of my contribution: the other aspects of an educational journey of a young person from regional Australia and how we can better support them not just as a federal government but right throughout the system to overcome the disadvantage.
I was very proud that we announced our independent review into regional education to be chaired by Professor Halsey. Look our for a discussion paper near you; it should be arriving by the end of April. I encourage all who are passionate about this area and keen on ensuring that young people from right across Australia have every opportunity available to them to get involved and have a say, because postcodes should not matter when it comes to educational outcomes in a country like Australia in the 21st century. I am very proud to be in a government absolutely committed to educational equity. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I am delighted to stand to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017, to associate myself with the comments of my colleague Senator McKenzie, to recognise those she has named in being instrumental over time—backbenchers and ministers—and also to acknowledge the work that she has done in her capacity as chair of the committee.
You know, this really shows that persistence lasts. I think I came into this place in early 2009, and it was one of the first issues with my background, coming from a rural and regional area in Western Australia and having been involved in rural and regional primary, secondary and, particularly, tertiary education. It was seen as an area of such difficulty and one that so urgently needed addressing. It is fantastic to be here today to actually see the support across the chamber. I acknowledge the comments of Senator Polley—particularly her introductory comments—with regard to the bill, though there are a couple of points I may take issue with toward the conclusion of Senator Polley's contribution.
It has long been the case that students from rural, regional and remote Australia have been significantly disadvantaged in comparison to students from the capitals and major regional cities. Acting Deputy President Marshall, you were, as I recall, a member of a Senate committee which I chaired back in 2012 that looked at teaching, learning, why students were not learning and why teachers could not teach. It was in that report that we identified, of course, rural and regional students as one more of the disadvantaged groups of children in our society: those of Indigenous background, those with disabilities and those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. We identified in that report very strongly that students from rural, regional and remote Australia needed to be included in the key pillars of groups who were disadvantaged.
Coming from WA, I pick up the difference in the academic standards of, for example, young people who may have been from the beginning of their school through to year 6 in regional, rural and remote areas. The cohort splits. One group stays in a rural community. The others go on, for example, to city schools—very often boarding schools. By year 12 you see a remarkable difference in the education outcomes of those students. In comparison with their peers in city based schools, you do not see a difference in the academic outcomes of those year 12 students whether they come from city urban or rural and remote areas. But, when you speak to examiners, invigilators and others, they will tell you immediately that those who have come from rural, remote or regional schools have lower education standards and outcomes. And it is the case in this country. There is no reason why there should be a disadvantage based on that element.
Senator McKenzie has outlined the difference in cost for a student to attend, for example, a city university or a TAFE or higher skills development location. It is not just the cost in dollar terms—as we know, those of us who had to go away from our homes for tertiary education. It is not just the dollar cost. It is the emotional cost. It is the support base that is needed. It is the fact that a 17- or 18-year-old does not have their own home to come back to at the end of the day. They are either in private rental accommodation or in a university college, or similar, if their parents can afford it. We know—and I know from my own personal experience—the added cost, but at least, if we can address the financial cost, that will go a long way.
It was in June of last year that I recall putting out a release congratulating the coalition and stating that, should we be successful in government, we would implement many of the strategies that we see in place today. It is most important that people understand that the reduction from 18 months to 14 months for a student to a prove independence after leaving school is of critical importance. By the time you take the month of December in the year they leave school, and the month of January, 13 months later, you get the gap year and the two added months. In other words, the net loss to a student in leaving school but not going immediately to university is only one year—one gap year, during which time they should work.
Those of us particularly associated with education in the agricultural space would be interested in Senator Siewert's comments as an agricultural scientist. If people who leave school have one year away before they start university, a higher proportion of them actually go on to uni. For those who must wait a two-year period, which is effectively what 18 months causes, the dropout rate, or the non-attendance rate, is vastly greater, and that is something we cannot afford.
I say—through you, Acting Deputy President Marshall—to the young people in the student gallery who are watching now: whatever you do, should the opportunity present, keep to the minimum the time interval between your leaving school and when you start your further studies. Because of the distraction after, certainly, one year away, the likelihood of you returning to university or other higher education studies two years later is reduced significantly. I say to those who might be interested in this process: it is so important that students do get on and start their program. If they have a gap year they work during that gap year, then they obviously have the financial independence, wherewithal and that added year of maturity. I agree with all those things. What I have great difficulty with is the loss of those two years, which this bill addresses. We will not see that loss of two years.
The other point that must always be borne in mind is the whole question of student aspiration. Through you, Acting Deputy President, I appeal to the young people in the gallery watching this discussion. We are talking about STEM—science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Of itself, STEM is only a stepping stone to a phenomenal future for the young people of Australia, who must not see STEM as just the endpoint. It is the familiarity with the knowledge of science, technology, engineering and mathematics that will see you young people embrace the phenomenal spectrum that is ahead of you: 3D printing and everything that goes with 3D printing; the advances we are seeing already in modern medicine; the announcements of the government of more than $100 billion in new naval shipbuilding, which is going to require skills across the board—at the certificate level, the diploma level, the degree level, the post-degree level—that will see you all not only achieve your ambitions and get yourselves into good, long-term, high-paying jobs, but, ultimately, your own children too. You will be so employable around the world, because everything we are talking about now is international. It is not confined to Australia. We are not doing these things purely for employment and opportunity in Australia. We are doing them for our role in the world.
Again, I say that the initiatives that have been taken in these changes we see today—simplifying student payments—will allow rural and regional students to also participate in those opportunities this country is on the cusp of. Just one example is the result of the work of Professor Fiona Woods after the horrific Bali bombing. In Perth, Fiona Woods with her team were able to develop technology where they could take the skin of people in a laboratory environment and create a spray of that skin which could then be sprayed back on to the horrific burns of burn victims. Just imagine this in five years time, with the advances we are making in science and technology: if a person needs a kidney transplant, they will take the tissue of the good kidney, produce it in the laboratory, and with 3D printing they will be able to put back into that patient a new kidney that is that person's own kidney. They will not have to worry about needing a donor. They will have their own kidney.
I say—through you, Acting Deputy President—to the groups in three areas in this chamber: it is you who will be the people making those advances. If you take nothing else away from your time in Canberra and Parliament House, take away the excitement of the opportunities that exist for you.
I know there are others wanting to speak. I know it is not the time to be talking about penalty rates today, and I will not take issue with it except to Senator Polley—through you, Acting Deputy President—if I can make two observations. The first is that on the weekend I spoke to a person in Perth who owns clothing stores in outer metropolitan areas, not in the CBD, and this person said to me, 'With these changes, I will open those stores on a Sunday, when I cannot afford to open them now.' So that is one observation I would make.
The other one goes back to 2009. I think it was the first committee that I sat on. I cannot remember whether Senator Polley was a member. I do remember Senator Bilyk being there. I just ask you to reflect on this: up till then, before the changes that were introduced by the then Labor government, pharmacy students could on a weekend be involved in the preparing of Webster packs and blister packs for patients in nursing homes, hospitals et cetera. Not only did they have the opportunity to be employed on a weekend, to earn some extra income on a weekend, but of course there was the value to them as pharmacy students of working with pharmaceuticals, of learning about them and of discussing the relativities of what was compatible with that medication. That was completely lost, simply because the necessity to pay those penalty rates was such that the employers were saying, 'Well, we can have this work done from Monday to Friday by unskilled or semiskilled people, but unfortunately we can't employ those pharmacy students on a weekend, particularly a Sunday, because of the penalty rates.' Today is not the day to be talking about those matters, but, since it was raised, I have just made two very simple observations.
In conclusion, I am delighted to see the work that has been done by the backbench, that has been done by committees and that has been undertaken by the ministers that sees us today able to agree to the amendments in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017 and to recognise again that the barrier to education for rural and regional students will be in some way broken down. The best evidence of that barrier is that, whilst people from rural and regional Australia represent a quarter of the general community, less than 20 per cent are represented at Australia's universities. From our own state of Western Australia, that figure would be much lower. I thank the chamber for the opportunity.
If I may, I would like to start with two questions of you, Mr Acting Deputy President: what is today's date, and is it 1 April? Before going on to answer those rhetorical questions, I want to make some comment about Senator Back's comments. I genuinely, sincerely admire his contribution in the Senate and especially in Senate committees. But I would like to address some comments he made to the students in the gallery upstairs. While I agree that the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017 is necessary and I support it, please do not think that it is essential to go to a university to be a very effective and valuable contributor to our society. Assess whether a university is needed, because universities these days, sadly, are teaching people what to think, not how to think, and it is the 'how to think' that is really important.
I say that because I have an honours degree in engineering from one of the world's top universities, the University of Queensland, and I have an MBA from the University of Chicago, one of the world's very top finance and economics schools, and I won a prize there for my academic achievements. I am pleased I went there, but it is not for everyone. I am very disappointed at the standard of university education these days because, apart from the University of Chicago, where I did my MBA, very few schools are teaching people how to think. So please assess for your own mind. The other thing I say to you all is: do not look to parliament for solutions. The solutions come from within every one of us in this country. We are a country that is blessed with very talented people and—at the moment—free people.
The purpose of this bill—to get to the point—is that it tightens a few minor loopholes that allow some people to qualify for student payments despite possessing significant amounts of wealth. For example, holdings in trusts will now be considered as part of assets tests, and that is fair. Amendments are made to cause payments that vary depending on the remoteness of a student's location to take account of new data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics when it is relevant. This removes the need for future legislative tinkering in this area. That will add to efficiency. Income support recipients will be automatically issued health cards.
The net benefit of these measures will be a very small saving to the budget in the order of $13,000 per year—$13,000 per year. While we encourage the saving of even one cent, I wonder what the cost of senators and members debating this bill is. I will say it is much more than $13,000. We need to discuss these issues, but we also need to be mindful of costs. Has a cost-benefit analysis been done on this? Sadly, our taxpayer funds in our country rarely receive cost-benefit analysis in our federal parliament.
What about corporate tax that is being avoided by multinationals worth tens of billions of dollars a year? I had an interesting conversation with the Commissioner of Taxation on Friday. I asked him if he could advise me on the amount of tax that will be collected by modifications that are being proposed by the government. It took him 20 minutes to simply say that he could not. We have innovation programs being funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet throughout history innovation has come from people with skin in the game—people who have something at stake.
Then we come to climate and energy. In his speech during the debate on the previous bill, Senator Sinodinos, in response to my comments on the lack of any specific empirical evidence, hard data or physical observations, said that we need a 'no regrets' decision. We must do something and, if there is no problem, we have done no damage. Yet in Australia climate policies are causing the waste of billions of dollars every year and are driving the destruction of the economy in South Australia, in Victoria, increasingly in our state, Queensland, in New South Wales and even in Western Australia if the new Labor government fulfils its commitments. Senator Sinodinos rightly raises the uncertainty that we have been told does not exist and he inadvertently confirms that he has no specific evidence for his government, the Labor Party, the Greens and Senator Xenophon punishing the Australian electorate with massive waste of billions of dollars. If he has any specific evidence proving that the human use of hydrocarbon energy is a detriment to our society, to our civilisation and to the natural environment that we feel is so precious, let him provide it. He never has. He was chief of staff for Prime Minister John Howard, who introduced the RET scheme that is destroying our states and our country, and manufacturing and even agriculture within our country. Prime Minister John Howard was the first leader of a major party to introduce an emissions trading scheme, and he also stole farmers' property rights, based upon something that Senator Sinodinos now implicitly admits has never been justified with specific evidence. If anyone has any specific evidence proving human cause, let's have it, because no-one has ever provided it.
I have challenged Professor Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland, my university, and John Cook, a subordinate to Professor Hoegh-Guldberg and climate communications fellow. I have challenged Professor Tim Flannery and Senator Larissa Waters three times, including in writing. I have challenged the ALP shadow minister, Mr Mark Butler, and yesterday the federally funded Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, after a two-hour meeting with me, withdrew from his previous acceptance of a challenge on my part to debate him on climate. He had accepted; yesterday he withdrew from that debate.
Senator Roberts, I am just wondering whether you might come back to the question before the chair.
I am, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have also chased the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies out of replying simply by using his own data. He now has failed to respond yet again. The Chief Scientist, the CSIRO, Minister Greg Hunt, Senator Wong and Mr Greg Combet have never provided any specific evidence proving human cause, and yet this parliament has passed billions of dollars worth of spending based upon it. What about regulations—
I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think you were very generous in trying to guide the good senator back to the bill before us. I just ask you to draw it to his attention.
Yes, Senator Roberts, I think we have been quite generous in letting you speak about matters that are not the subject before the chair, but you really should now come back to the question of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017.
That I will, and thank you for your tolerance. What I am trying to paint is that we are in a parliament that is subject to massive amounts of regulation. Regulations around property rights, energy costs, and taxes are destroying business in this country. People in south-west Queensland, including business owners, farmers and everyday Australians, are talking about this. This is yet another example of regulations taking over people's lives in this country. We are allocating to spend $50 billion on submarines, and that is in excess of $30 billion. The Liberals, Labor, the Greens and the Xenophon team are wasting money.
That said, Mr Acting Deputy President, thank you for your indulgence—sorry, thank you for my indulgence. We have a sense of humour, don't we! I do support this bill. It does protect people in the regions. I just raise the point that all of us need to protect our taxpayer funding and give people the opportunity to use the enormous talents that we have in everyday Australians.
In deference to the Senate's time, I will not reread the summing-up speech from the other place, but I will particularly note the contributions of my colleagues Senators McKenzie and Back outlining the nature of schedule 4 of this bill and its contribution to further enabling the involvement of students from rural and regional Australia in post-secondary education. I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
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.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 and the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017. The treasury laws amendment bill has three schedules. Schedule 1 implements the diverted profits tax. Schedule 2 increases the administrative penalties that the Commissioner of Taxation can apply to large multinationals to encourage them to better comply with their taxation obligations. This includes lodging tax documents on time and taking reasonable care when making statements. Schedule 3 updates a provision in the transfer pricing rules in Australia's tax law to incorporate recent changes to transfer pricing rules by the OECD.
The diverted profits tax in this bill reflects the second limb of the diverted profits tax that has been introduced in the United Kingdom. It aims to give the Commissioner of Taxation additional powers to ensure that tax paid by large multinationals reflects the economic substance of their activities, and it aims to do so by changing the payment and appeal processes that the commissioner can use in these situations. It also allows the commissioner greater latitude to act on limited information. The DPT may apply when the ATO believes the entity is transferring profits to a 'related entity' in a tax jurisdiction with an applicable tax rate below 24 per cent. Where the commissioner makes a DPT assessment, the taxpayer will have 21 days to pay the amount set out in the DPT assessment.
Following the issue of the notice of a DPT assessment, the taxpayer will be able to provide the commissioner with further information disclosing reasons why the DPT assessment should be reduced in part or in full during the period of review, generally 12 months after notice is given of the DPT assessment. If, at the end of that period of review, the relevant taxpayer is dissatisfied with the DPT assessment, or the amended DPT assessment, the taxpayer will have 60 days to challenge the assessment by making an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. However, the taxpayer will generally be restricted to adducing evidence that was provided to the commissioner before the end of the period of review. By changing the payment and appeal processes in these situations and supporting the commissioner to act on limited information, the DPT is intended to encourage taxpayers to be more transparent and cooperative with the commissioner, hopefully leading to an agreed outcome during the 12-month review period. However, if an outcome cannot be reached within the 12-month review period then a penalty tax will apply on the amount of the diverted profit at a rate of 40 per cent. The combination of the up-front payment and the greater disclosure is intended to both speed up the resolution of disputes and capture taxable income that would otherwise have been diverted.
Schedule 2 to this bill allows the Commissioner of Taxation to apply greater administrative penalties to large multinationals. This increases the penalties that the commissioner can apply to multinationals who fail to meet obligations like lodging tax documents on time and taking reasonable care when making statements. This includes increasing the amount of the administrative penalty that applies when significant global entities do not lodge a return, notice, statement or other approved form with the commissioner on time. It also includes doubling penalties relating to statements and failing to give documents necessary to determine tax-related liabilities. We are supportive of these measures. However, I note that Labor has already acted on increasing penalties for non-compliant reporting by multinationals. It was back in February 2016 that the shadow Assistant Treasurer introduced a private member's bill designed to raise penalties for large multinationals who were not compliant with their country-by-country reporting obligations.
Schedule 3 to this bill amends a line of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to update the provision that incorporates the OECD's transfer pricing guidelines. This will allow Australia's transfer pricing rules to incorporate the latest OECD guidelines. Excessive transfer pricing is when multinational firms shift their profits to low-tax jurisdictions by setting unrealistic prices for their actual commercial or financial dealings with their related parties. Australia's transfer pricing rules require an entity entering into a cross-border transaction to value that transaction according to the arms-length conditions and arms-length profits that might be expected to exist between independent entities that deal wholly independently with one another in comparable circumstances. The recent updates to the OECD's transfer pricing guidelines come out of the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting process. The updates are designed to better address issues surrounding intellectual property and hard-to-value intangibles.
In his speech to this bill in the other place, the Treasurer proclaimed:
This government will not stand for tax avoidance. We will not stand for the deliberate flaunting of our tax laws by major multinational enterprises.
The Treasurer has also said elsewhere:
The Labor Party, when they were in government, did absolutely diddly-squat when it came to the issue of making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
These statements should be tested against the record of those opposite. The last major updates to strengthen transfer pricing rules were back in 2013, and they were introduced by the then Labor government. They went far further and did far more than the worthy but small amendment to the transfer pricing laws in schedule 3 to this legislation. We also passed legislation to strengthen the income tax law's general anti-avoidance provision in part IVA. Part IVA is the part of our income tax law that allows the commissioner to counteract tax schemes that are blatant, artificial and contrived. It allows the commissioner to act where schemes were entered into or carried out with a purpose of obtaining a tax benefit. Gaps had been identified in this provision. In government, we did the hard work on legislation to strengthen this provision and to close those gaps. We passed that legislation back in 2013.
It says it all that legislation to strengthen our transfer pricing rules and to strengthen our anti-avoidance laws were opposed by those opposite. When that bill came before parliament in 2013, Senator Sinodinos said:
We need less regulation, not more regulation. For that, among other reasons, we will be opposing this bill.
Senator Cormann said:
Let me just say up-front that the coalition will be opposing this bill, and we will be opposing it strongly, because we think it is not in our national interest. It is a bill that is undermining our national interest.
He later dismissed that bill as an 'overreaction'. For all of this government's rhetoric about making multinationals pay their fair share, back in 2013 they voted to oppose strengthening Australia's transfer pricing rules, and they voted against strengthening the general anti-avoidance rule. Those opposite voted in favour of tax loopholes and in favour of large multinationals dodging their tax obligations.
It is also worth remembering that the previous Labor government introduced tax transparency laws to require the public reporting of the tax paid by corporate tax entities with over $100 million in income. This was a great reform to bring some sunlight on to the tax that corporate tax entities pay and to better inform public debate.
Those laws were also opposed by those opposite. Then, when they got into government, they watered down those laws, with the help of the Greens, in what the government euphemistically called 'better targeting'. That deal has meant that tax transparency applies to large public firms with incomes over $100 million but only applies to private firms with incomes over $200 million.
As with many other things, multinational tax avoidance is an issue on which this government has been dragged to and forced to act by community outrage. Their record on corporate tax avoidance is similar to their record on the Future of Financial Advice reforms—a landmark achievement of the previous Labor government. Nowadays, they pretend that they are serious about consumer protections in this area, because they know that is what the Australian people expect. However, it was only a few years ago that they were voting against FOFA. Then, when they got into government, they set about trying to water down FOFA. Labor had to fight tooth and nail to stop them.
Over the last few years, Labor has done much to campaign on the issue of corporate tax avoidance. This includes the good work done through the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. That committee noted in its report:
Aggressive tax minimisation and avoidance can have a number of direct and indirect consequences for the broader economy and social fabric. Some submissions reflected growing concerns that tax avoidance causes serious harm, often to the most vulnerable groups in society, as unrealised corporate tax revenue denies governments revenue for essential public services, such as healthcare, education, effective law enforcement, aged care and roads.
The work of the committee tied in with the memorable declaration of the Commissioner of Taxation at Senate estimates early last year, when he said:
These companies have pushed the envelope on reasonableness. They play games. They string us along. They believe we can be stooged. However, enough is enough and no more of this. We will be reasonable with those that genuinely cooperate, but we will now take a much harder stance on those who do not.
Australians understand that taxes pay for our schools, for Medicare, for our hospitals, and for the public services that we use every day. They know that tax avoidance by large multinationals places an unfair burden on those who do pay tax. It places an unfair competitive disadvantage on those doing the right thing.
We know that there are some multinationals who rejoice in finding loopholes to exploit. We can only hope, for the sake of hardworking Australians, that this diverted profits tax will have a meaningful effect on tax avoidance. We support the intent of the legislation before the Senate. However, if you want to know the true priorities of this government, you should look at the numbers. This diverted profits tax was announced in the 2016 budget, and, although we do not have the 10-year figures, we know that over the forward estimates it is forecast to raise $200 million. We know that this diverted profits tax was part of a desperate attempt to distract from the government's $50 billion tax cut to large companies and big banks that was announced in the same budget. We know that those opposite are desperate to hide that tax cut behind a phoney war on tax avoidance. Those opposite are trying to pretend that they are serious about reducing multinational profit shifting.
The difference between us and those opposite could not be starker. With votes against closing tax loopholes, votes against tax transparency and now an unfunded $50 billion company tax cut, those opposite have a record that suggests they are not serious on this issue. By contrast, Labor went to the 2016 election with a plan to close debt deduction loopholes exploited by multinational companies. We will stand on our record—a record of closing tax loopholes used by multinationals, a record of greater tax transparency and a record of looking out for the interests of the Australian people as a whole.
I think one thing we all agree on here in the Senate is that everybody should pay tax. We probably also agree that everybody should pay their fair share of tax. However, I understand there will be some subjective disagreements on what that fair share is. I can guarantee one thing we also agree on is that for some people to pay no tax is totally unacceptable, and for corporations to pay no tax is totally unacceptable.
The combating multinational tax avoidance issue has been before us now for the last three years. We have had a series of legislation that we have scrutinised and voted on. A number of us have sat on the committees that have taken evidence in relation to these bills.
I want to step back a little bit further, before I talk to those specific pieces of legislation and the legislation in front of us today, and thank the stakeholders. Going back to 2012-13, stakeholders came and visited, I think, just about each and every one of us in our offices. I am talking about stakeholders such as Micah Challenge, and the various community groups who sat down with each senator and their staffers and said, 'This issue of multinational tax avoidance is a very serious one. Why is it that the government is not acting on chasing some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations in the world to make sure they pay their fair share of tax?'
The Tax Justice Network is one example of a volunteer, not-for-profit network of community groups, mostly church groups, who have spent years coordinating across the globe to provide information to senators, members of parliament and officials within government departments to make sure that we are well informed on the serious issue of tax avoidance—not just by multinationals, by wealthy individuals, by private companies and by public companies, including small companies. This is an issue that we face every day. I want to thank on the record all those people who have come up to Parliament, and recognise and reflect on the fact that sometimes democracy works really well. We listened, as did the fantastic journalists in this country, who have also been very dogged in their pursuit of getting tax justice more broadly for stakeholders, and in fact for all Australian taxpayers who pay their fair share of tax and for all citizens who vote in this country. This is an international effort. This is not just Australia acting unilaterally. This is part of the G20. It is part of much broader discussions about how, between countries, we can combat tax avoidance by megacorporations.
In the 2015-16 budget, the government introduced a package of three key reforms to combat multinational tax avoidance. The first bill was called MAAL, the multinational anti-avoidance law. It sought to stop multinationals with significant Australian activities booking profits overseas to avoid paying tax in Australia. There was a doubling of penalties for large companies that enter into tax avoidance or profit shifting schemes and there was country by country reporting, which required large multinationals, of over $1 billion in capitalisation, to report to the Australian Taxation Office their income received and tax paid in every country where they operate. The underlying principles of these measures—transparency and information—allow us to make decisions about who is and is not paying their fair share of tax. It is quite remarkable that in this day and age there is very little information sharing between countries and that there are very lax reporting standards, even within countries such as Australia.
I remember very well when that package came to parliament. We had previously had a bill—it was originally a Labor bill—for tax transparency, for both public and private companies over $100 million to disclose basic metrics about their tax affairs. I remember that bill very well, because I was sitting in the chair when the bill came to the Senate. The speaking list collapsed and the bill was voted down unopposed. I spoke to my party room about this issue, because it was obviously extremely important to stakeholders. When the MAAL bill came to the Senate, I put up as a cheeky amendment the previous bill on tax transparency. What transpired was a significant debate in this place. In the end, to get the bill through before the Christmas break, which was essential, because that was when the reporting was due to start—
You really want to go there?
Had that reporting not started then, we would have had to wait another 15 months to get transparency. The Greens managed to secure transparency for public companies of over $100 million in value and private companies of over $200 million. Would we have liked to have seen more companies thrown into the net? Yes, we would, but in the end we chose to get this essential reform through parliament. It was a pragmatic, important decision that has delivered us important first steps forward—albeit maybe baby steps. I do remember very well, Senator Dastyari, through you, Chair, that fantastic billboard you put up all around Sydney, saying that the Greens had voted down multinational tax transparency. There they were, Labor lies up on billboards for everyone to see. We hold no bitterness over that, because we are achieving something in parliament for the people who put us here. We are taking on the big end of town. We are making sure that they pay their tax that goes to school hospitals, to schools, to policing and to our social security net. If it is fair enough for us to be paying our fair share of tax and that that is enforced, then so should it be for big, wealthy corporations, who for too long have got away with simple things such as profit shifting, which brings me to the content of the bill today.
Schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 seeks to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and associated acts to introduce a new diverted profits tax, or DPT, from 1 July 2017. If the diverted profit tax applies, the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 would impose tax on the amount of the diverted profit at the rate of 40 per cent. What do we mean by diverted profit? A diverted profit occurs where I as a company earn a profit and report it in a country other than my home country of Australia. Why would I do that? It is quite simple. In countries like Singapore the corporate tax rate is 15 per cent. We discovered in our Senate inquiry that some companies who, for example, were selling commodities like iron ore were saying, 'We're selling the iron ore at, let's say, $150 a tonne. We'll attribute $15 a tonne to the production of it in Australia. The other $135 of value comes from our trading arm in Singapore. Therefore, we'll divert our profits to be taxed at the lower rate in Singapore,' which means we in Australia miss out. That is what 'diverted profit' means, and this bill is designed to stop that. The bill is designed to crack down on entities that try and do that. The report of The Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill states that the primary objectives of the diverted profits tax are:
Let us be honest: unfortunately, a lot of these contrived arrangements have actually been legal. They are not ethical and they are certainly not moral, and they put a burden on low income Australians, especially, who have to pay their tax. But all these wealthy corporations have got away with it because our system is set up to allow them to avoid paying tax. This is trying to crack down on that. The last objective is:
The report continues:
The DPT targets multinationals entering into arrangements with offshore related parties that lack economic substance, in order to divert their Australian profits to lower tax countries and avoid paying Australian tax.
This is not the same necessarily as we saw with the Panama papers, where individuals and companies were using a shadowy, murky set of tax arrangements across different companies set up in tax havens where there is no transparency. These are actually some very well known companies: we heard evidence about Apple, Microsoft and other technology companies that were not paying any tax in our country at all through their overseas arrangements. Ireland has been down this road and so has England, with what is called a Google tax, to try and crack down on this kind of thing. In fact, this legislation is very similar to that. The diverted profit tax:
… will apply to large multinationals considered to be significant global entities with annual global income of $1 billion—
one billion Australian dollars—
or more with total assessable income, exempt income and non-assessable non-exempt income—
try and say that one really quickly—
of more than $25 million with schemes that involve associated entities that do not have the economic substance to justify their income.
We will be supporting this legislation, but I will be putting up an amendment in the Committee of the Whole. At the moment, the bill gives the tax commissioner discretion to pursue, aggressively or otherwise, companies that are diverting 20 per cent or more of their tax. So what happens if a company is caught red-handed, let's say through an audit, of diverting 15 per cent of its tax? If that tax is in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, it is a lot of money we have to make up for by going after Australians to pay their tax or raising revenue through other measures. So the Greens would like to lower that threshold to 10 per cent and give the commissioner discretion to go after multinational corporations at a level of 10 per cent rather than 20 per cent. That allows us to capture more diverted profits in taxation. I think it is a more sensible and aggressive approach.
I am not exactly sure why 20 per cent was chosen as a benchmark by the government. I know there are always costs and benefits of going after multinational corporations. Sadly, as we found out in our committee, when the tax office takes on the big end of town the legal cases can go on for a decade. In fact, some are still going on after five or six years and these corporations still have not paid any tax. I understand that the ATO has to commit taxpayer funds in the first place to pursue some of these companies and perhaps they look at it on a risk-weighted basis, as in, it is not worth going after companies with less than 20 per cent, but, I would like to hear that justification from the Treasurer or from Senator Cormann on behalf of the Treasurer. This is not a second reading amendment. The Greens will be putting up an amendment in the Committee of the Whole.
I have still got a few minutes to go, but I will not take up any more of the Senate's time. We have a lot of legislation to go. I am proud to be a part of the Senate that worked with the government and with Labor and with the crossbenchers to introduce a second substantial set of legislation that actually takes on multinational tax avoidance. There is still a lot more we can do. There are other countries looking at what we are doing here in Australia. Some are even criticising us for doing this without a global agreement, so I do commend the government for getting on with this. I know Labor has some track record going back over the years with tackling this issue.
I have already thanked the stakeholders who brought this to our attention. Lastly, I would like to thank one of my predecessors, a former senator, Christine Milne, who used to sit in this chair here, who led the party room after the resignation of Bob Brown. It was Christine who introduced and got up the first Senate inquiry into multinational tax avoidance on behalf of the community groups that came to see them. Senator Ketter, Senator Dastyari and others in this chamber were all a part of that inquiry. It has put pressure on the government. The Senate has done its job by scrutinising this issue and putting pressure on the government to deliver this legislation. We need to keep that pressure up, because we still have a long way to go and there are still a large number of measures. In fact, the Greens put up nearly 22 extra measures at the last election on what we can do to tackle multinational tax avoidance. We have still got a long way to go, but this is a great step forward. I look forward to speaking to my amendment in Committee of the Whole.
I rise today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 and Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017. Following on from Senator Whish-Wilson's comments, I want to make a reference to the fact that it was the Senate Economics References Committee which looked very closely at this whole issue of multinational tax avoidance. It provided a report back in August 2015. You cannot tax what you cannot see was part 1 of the reports into corporate tax avoidance. It identified a number of these issues.
Senator Whish-Wilson touched on the fact that, during the course of those hearings, particularly in Sydney—very memorable hearings under the able chairmanship of Senator Dastyari, who is now present in the chamber—we heard extraordinary testimonies from some of the multinational companies in relation to their audacious tax planning arrangements. They were very unrepentant at the time about what they were doing in Australia and in other countries to avoid tax altogether.
I also want to, as I have on previous occasions, reflect the fact that the Greens did play a part and former Senator Milne was very much a part of the setting up of that inquiry, which I think has done some very useful work. But, if this government was serious about getting tough on multinationals, they would do something about the one in three companies that pay no tax. We know that the 2014-15 tax transparency data shows that more than one in three large firms pay no tax, including 109 companies that paid no tax despite reporting more than $1 billion in total income.
Transparency is so important. The report covers 1,904 companies in total, but it is only available because of the former Labor government's tax transparency laws, which were passed in 2013, to the objection of the coalition. I will also, in passing, mention that, unfortunately, the coalition and Greens combined to water down those tax transparency laws, taking two-thirds of private companies out of the reporting net.
It is no surprise that the government is trying to put through this corporate tax integrity scheme in the same week that it is arguing for a $50 billion tax handout to big banks and multinationals. A diverted profits tax is estimated to raise just $200 million over the forward estimates, when Labor's 2016 election multinational tax package would have delivered $1.6 billion over the forward estimates. This alone tells you which of the major parties is serious when it comes to improving the integrity of Australia's corporate tax framework.
The Labor Party will vote for these bills, but they clearly do not go far enough. Labor believes that these bills do not justify the passage of the government's enterprise tax plan. Like other Labor senators, I want to remind the Senate that the issue of multinational tax avoidance has a chequered history during the coalition's time in government. In the additional comments on the economics committee's final report, we drew attention to the government's inconsistency. As I mentioned, the government watered down the tax transparency measures following that. Subsequent efforts by the Abbott-Turnbull governments to address multinational tax avoidance have been patchy and belated, lagging behind the expectations of the Australian community that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax and behind measures announced by the Labor opposition.
Schedule 1 of the bill, which relates to the diverted profits tax, is a welcome start to the coalition's late arrival to action on this topic. Labor will work with the government wherever possible to deter profit shifting and to improve transparency and information sharing with the Australian tax office. The structure of the diverted profits tax is strangely similar to the UK conservative government's diverted profits tax, which goes to show that despite the Treasurer's claims of the government being world leading the Turnbull government is actually behind the times.
Schedule 2, which increases administrative penalties for those companies who do not comply, is also welcome. But, again, a government behind the times is simply following on the shadow Assistant Treasurer's private members bill introduced in February 2016, which would have raised penalties for noncompliant reporting in country-by-country reporting by fiftyfold. The government has essentially implemented Labor policy, albeit rising to a hundredfold.
Schedule 3 updates Australia's rules on transfer pricing to bring it into line with the OECD transfer-pricing guidelines that were approved by the OECD Council in May 2016. These amendments are welcome and we must do everything we can to ensure that intra-party transfers reflect the proper economic value of these transactions. As I mentioned previously, the economics references committee heard on many occasions that cleaning up these rules for transfer pricing, particularly through international consensus, is vital.
It is clear that some multinationals will go to extreme, even absurd, lengths to conceal their tax minimisation practices. The audacity of certain multinationals in refusing to comply with legitimate and reasonable requests for information leaves me with reason to suspect that the current framework for tackling multinational tax avoidance needs significant improvement. The unwillingness of many multinationals to discuss openly their tax arrangements underscores the need to establish mechanisms to increase transparency. Perhaps the most reckless part of the government's inability to combat multinational tax avoidance is their false attempts at true reform. The difference between Labor and Liberal could not be starker: we will put people first. The 2016 budget has shown Mr Turnbull and the Liberal Party will look after high-income earners and multinationals.
The government have seriously mismanaged the budget. The recent mid-year budget update has confirmed the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer's economic plan is in tatters, leaving Australia's gold-plated AAA credit rating at real risk. The figures confirm that debt and deficits are continuing to blow out at the same time as the economy is shrinking and full-time jobs are disappearing. Net debt has blown out to an estimated $317 billion since the Liberals took office, up from $184 billion when they took office. Deficits over the forward estimates have blown out by another $10 billion. Since their first budget, the budget deficit for 2017-18 has blown out tenfold, from $2.8 billion to $28.7 billion. The projected surplus in 2020-21 has shrunk and is now wafer thin, leaving us in the danger zone when it comes to our AAA credit rating.
While this legislation is a welcome change, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer must rule out making harsh cuts to pensioners and vulnerable Australians in the 2017 budget, as flagged by Mr Tony Shepherd and the Menzies Research Centre today. Australians simply do not want a repeat of the horror 2014 budget; they do not want to see harsh cuts to pensioners, families and people with disability. Mr Tony Shepherd is the author of the Commission of Audit report that provided the blueprint for the disastrous 2014 budget. Labor will not forget that the Commission of Audit recommended abolishing family tax benefit part B, increasing the pension age to 70 and cutting pension indexation. The truth is that Australia's pension system is well-targeted and sustainable compared to many other developed countries. Figures from the OECD show that Australia spends a relatively small proportion of our GDP on payments to the elderly. Public spending on old age pensions across the OECD averaged 7.9 per cent of GDP. Australia spends just 3.5 per cent of GDP on old age pensions, making it one of the lowest spenders on pensions in the developed world. Australian pensioners have worked hard all their lives; they deserve a decent standard of living in retirement. They certainly do not deserve to be treated like a burden by Prime Minister and his mates at the big end of town.
Mr Turnbull and the Liberals just do not get the issue of fairness. They will always put the interests of big business ahead of pensioners and ordinary Australians. Nevertheless, Labor will support these bills; however, there is still more work to be done. People can look at Labor's 2016 election platform to see the kinds of sensible reforms on gearing ratios and transparency in reporting that can give Australians the confidence that corporations are making their proper public contribution to our society. (Quorum formed)
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to address some fundamental issues in tax collection. This legislation seeks to put in place a diverted profits tax, a punitive measure against companies that seek to avoid their fiscal obligations to the Australian people, to be levied on international companies—multinationals—at a rate of 40 per cent. Whilst a valuable symbolic measure, this tax is really just a gesture and is unlikely to raise much of a sweat in the boardrooms of foreign tax dodgers. Tax avoidance by multinational companies is a massive cost to our nation's finances, worth many hundreds of billions of dollars. It is an issue which Pauline Hanson's One Nation party intends to address. In fact, we have raised it many times.
The International Tax Agreements Act 1953—introduced by Sir Robert Menzies, the then Prime Minister—is one of the offending pieces of legislation by which Australia has been swindled out of its taxation revenue. This and related legislation provides for double taxation agreements with other countries. Double taxation agreements aim to define residency and source rules, which in turn lead to the avoiding and eliminating of double taxation of income or capital in each country. Double taxation agreements contain rules that draw firstly on the domestic laws of this country to attribute a sole country of residence to persons or corporations who would otherwise be regarded as dual residents. While sounding reasonable, this is open to major abuse. This act and associated legislation is in need of major reform. We have to get to the root cause of this, and we go back to there.
Some of the fundamentals: in 1986, then Commissioner of Taxation, Trevor Boucher, introduced self assessment with assistance from the Second Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Carmody. On the face of it, self assessment makes sense. Self assessment is based on assessing millions of tax returns from everyday Australians—individual taxpayers. It makes sense, because if we can think of corporate and individual taxpayers as a triangle, then at the base of the triangle we have the overwhelming majority, which are millions of individual taxpayers. At the top of the triangle, the peak, we have a few multinational companies. Self assessment was aimed at reducing costs and driving more people into the lower group, self assessing and developing a culture of honesty.
With everyday Australians, who feel responsible for the state of our country and the need to contribute our country, that has worked. But for the few multinationals at the very top of the triangle, it gave them a way out. They have been dodging tax for generations. Self assessment has enabled some of these companies—through their power, through the complexity of the taxation regulations and through the complexity of accounting systems—to have their own proprietary accounting systems, which are basically impermeable to the people without experience within that tax system. It makes it very, very complicated and difficult for the Australian Taxation Office. In addition, if the Australian Taxation Office is able to decipher that, the power behind these companies to wear out the Australian Taxation Office in the courts is enormous.
We need simplification. We need external accountability and external assessment to be brought back. But even bringing back external assessment would simply require enormous resources. What we need is a comprehensive review of our taxation system. Mr Shorten, as Leader of the Opposition leading up to the last election, and then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull both ruled out tax reform. They will not even discuss, let alone let us look at, the Henry tax review. The 1986 decision was wrong. It may have been largely correct, but the 1986 decision on self assessment was wrong. Before we can get any movement in taxation and get comprehensive reform, we must come up and admit that. Then we have two choices: do we keep patching the current tax system and do we make it externally assessed—then the Australian Taxation Office enters into auditing major multinational companies, with all of the trauma that I have just discussed—or do we step outside our current tax system and comprehensively reform the current tax system? Tax is the price of civilisation; it is a necessary evil. While I cannot attribute this quote to a name at the moment, and I regret that, tax can also be the destroyer of civilisation.
What we find at the moment is that we have major multinational companies that are not individuals, yet are treated as individuals under our law. That is the concept of incorporating. The multinational companies are led by individuals—that is correct—but those individuals are driven by systems that involve key performance indicators or whatever the latest buzzword term is these days. Key performance indicators do not drive loyalty to Australia. Key performance indicators drive serving the corporations' needs.
Those organisations have no interest and no desire to be taxed in this country. They have every incentive, every desire, to continue to avoid tens of billions of dollars of tax that they must pay. Everyday mums and dads pay for the infrastructure that those companies use. Those companies use that infrastructure with very little in the way of funding from them. Sadly, the Treasurer and the tax commissioner have locked themselves into this idea of self-assessment and that we can bring these major multinationals to heel. That is not possible, because the fundamental drivers, the motives, for these companies are at odds with the motives of the Australian taxpayer.
We need a system that is outside the current system, and I propose to you that we need to think strategically about this. Let me give you some examples as to why. In the 1980s, as Treasurer, Paul Keating came very, very close to getting his goods and services tax adopted. The Prime Minister of the day, Bob Hawke, was running his tax summit, and it looked as though the Treasurer at the time, Paul Keating, would get his GST through. But, at the last moment, the then Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, got the wobbles and the wheel fell off the tax cart. Paul Keating was devastated. He really believed in the need for a GST. But just a few years later, when John Hewson raised the issue of a GST, what did Paul Keating do? He smashed John Hewson for raising a GST—such is the nature of debate in politics in this country being so party politicised, so party polarised, so destroying of accountability and truth.
Then I bring you to another example. In the late 1990s, just 10 years later, Pauline Hanson was making a huge inroad into Australian politics and she dared, in her naivety, to float the idea that we should have an open discussion about taxation, because back then she said the multinational countries were raping this country and not paying their fair share of tax and avoiding tens of billions of dollars in taxation—according to the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, Jim Killaly, who retired early last year, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxation. Pauline Hanson had the temerity—or, should I say, the naivety—in her introduction to politics to think that truth would drive a debate. She raised for debate a taxation system in the hope that it would get scrutiny and produce something effective—and, if not, directly lead to something else in that debate.
Prior to Pauline Hanson, the then member for Oxley, raising that, the drivers of that taxation system raised the taxation system with then Treasurer, Peter Costello, Australia's best Treasurer and someone for whom—based upon the reports I have read in the media—I have some regard. He said, according to the originators of that tax system, that it was well deserving of assessment to see if it would work. But the moment Pauline Hanson came out with it, because of her upward trajectory in the polls, Peter Costello crucified her for that taxation system. It was never assessed; it was just ridiculed, based on ignorance and the media. That is who runs this country. Apart from a few individuals behind each party, the powerbrokers, we have the media—and that is costing our country tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions of dollars.
So we are not going to get an objective discussion simply by floating a taxation system—and that is why we do not. What I would put to you is that we need to first of all have a discussion about the weaknesses and the destructive power of the current tax system. I do not think there would be too many people who would support it once they had the facts, but we do not see the facts very often. We will be bringing you more of the facts. But let us have a discussion about the destructive impact of the current tax system. When I am travelling in regional Queensland, our voters, our supporters, and even those who vote for other parties are telling us that their No. 1 issue is tax. Their No. 2 issue is regulation and the No. 3 issue is energy prices. Then, in regional Queensland, it is the theft of property rights. Taxation is at the top of people's needs. They want it addressed. It is destroying business and it is destroying employment.
Then we have the Labor Party wanting to bring in a carbon dioxide tax. We have just a mish-mash of one tax on top of another tax. That is right: the workers' party, the party of Ben Chifley and John Curtin, wants to bring in a tax that is aimed at increasing the cost of manufacturing and increasing the cost of energy, so that people will use less of it. This is the level of debate in this country on taxation. It is all about squashing each other, rather than protecting the Australian taxpayer. What we need here is to go beyond this window-dressing.
I had a very interesting conversation with the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Chris Jordan, and one of his senior executives, Jeremy Hirschhorn, last Friday. I asked them what sort of revenue they would expect to raise from these measures. Twenty minutes later, there was no answer; just vague comments and no specific calculation. We understand why. It is because it is so difficult. We have a staffer who used to work in the Australian Taxation Office. I have friends who work in the Australian Taxation Office. It is very difficult to understand the size of this issue. And, until we understand the size of the issue, this bill will not do much.
I have turned around businesses. I have led the turnaround of businesses. I have led the establishment of major innovations of business in this country. I have led football teams. I understand what is important about the energy that needs to be brought to bear on an issue. If the person at the very top does not have an understanding of what is involved, how can he or she be committed? How can he or she really inspire others to follow? If the Australian Taxation Office has no understanding or cannot convey to a senator an understanding of what this bill will bring us in the way of increased revenue, what hope is there? We need a discussion on the detrimental effects of the current taxation system. Then what we need is—after the admission that it is out of control and is not serving the people, the economy and the nation of Australia—to understand and to find some principles for developing an effective, efficient, honest, fair and transparent taxation system. Once we have those defined and have agreement to, concurrence on and commitment to them, then a taxation system will fall out of that. The principles design the system.
So, while we commend the government for raising this multinational tax issue, we say that, at the moment, it is really just window-dressing. We need the captain of the Australian Taxation Office to have the power and the resources to do his job. We need the team members in the Australian Taxation Office to have the ability, through resources, to do their jobs. We need to transform this from window-dressing into something that actively brings multinationals to heel so that the people of Australia can actually have their tax burdens lowered.
We are having a discussion in this country at the moment on penalty rates, on which we will have more to say this Thursday. It is very, very simple. I have worked as a coalminer, I have had a weekly wage, I have had to work overtime and I have had to work on Sundays. One year I worked 10 weeks in a row with only one day off, and that was Christmas Day. I valued penalty rates and I valued public holiday penalty rates. As an employee, I understood that what was really important to me was net pay. As an employer, I know that what interests employers is gross pay.
I had a conversation with the former secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Dave Oliver. I said to him, 'What is your greatest problem that you think exists in Australia?' He told me, 'Compliance and increasing wages.' I said to him: 'Do you understand the tax system? While you're well intentioned in increasing pay, because you are increasing gross pay much more than you are increasing net pay you are driving jobs out of this country and you are increasing unemployment.' We need to have an honest discussion on the difference between net pay and gross pay—in other words, taxation. We need to have an honest, comprehensive and open discussion on the destructive power of the current tax schemozzle.
We will be supporting this bill. We urge the government to join us in going much further in having an honest discussion and then an honest and constructive debate. The people of Australia need to be set free from the burdens of this tax schemozzle.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 and the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017.
The tax office is a bully, and parliamentarians here are egging it on. Bullies beat up on unpopular kids, and there is no-one more unpopular at the moment than multinational companies. Bullies fear getting caught by the schoolteacher so they beat up on popular kids behind the sheds rather than out in the open. The tax office fears the courts because the courts regularly find that the multinationals are in the right and that the tax office is in the wrong, so the tax office has asked the government to introduce these bills currently before the Senate. What they do is prevent multinationals from having access to the courts for 12 months from the point at which they come under attack from the tax office. This is a gross violation of the rule of law, and it is scandalous that the government in this parliament is so openly encouraging the tax office to act like a lawless bully.
The bills currently before the Senate allow the tax office to slap a 40 per cent tax on whatever they choose. If the multinational does not immediately pay, it also faces an interest cost on this unpaid tax at the bank bill rate plus seven per cent. If the tax office subsequently decides that it made a mistake, any tax paid by the multinational is returned plus any interest costs incurred by the multinational with respect to the bank bill rate. But the tax office does not return the seven per cent component of any interest cost.
The message to multinationals is clear: if the tax office is right, pay up; if the tax office is wrong, you must still pay up. If you want to fight the tax office in the courts, you will have to wait a year, during which you will rack up an enormous interest cost. The consequences of these draconian bills are clear: we will see fewer multinationals do business and employ people here compared to what we would see if Australia had a competitive company tax rate, clearly defined tax rules and a commitment to the rule of law. Australia is closed for business. The government could not be any clearer.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 and the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 are a step in the right direction. I have a very different view from our colleague Senator Leyonhjelm in relation to this because, if a company is not paying tax at a fair rate compared to Australian companies by virtue of the arrangements it can make to avoid or minimise tax through complex arrangements, trusts and intermediaries overseas, that is not fair. That is actually costing the Australian government revenue that could be spent on hospitals, schools and essential services. Yet it also impacts on Australian businesses that have to compete on an unlevel playing field.
My colleagues and I support the general thrust of this legislation and acknowledge the work that has been undertaken by the government to combat multinational tax avoidance. This first started some two to three years ago when the then Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey, now the ambassador to Washington, so maybe I should call him His Excellency. You are nodding, Mr Acting Deputy President Back, so maybe I should call him His Excellency. The fact is that what Mr Hockey did was very useful, but he did play a very significant role in the G20 to push this issue forward, and he should be genuinely commended for doing so.
He was pushed.
Senator Whish-Wilson said he was pushed. You could be pushed into worse places than the Australian embassy in Washington!
In relation to this bill, it is important to bear in mind that the additional burden that hardworking Australians and taxpaying businesses bear as a result of multinational tax avoidance should not be understated. However, as my colleague in the House of Representatives, the member for Mayo—and there still is a seat of Mayo despite whatever the duopoly may want to do to wipe out the seat of Mayo. That is something that can be resisted with great urgency. Anyone who thinks that they will get rid of the seat of Mayo by some sort of deal between the Liberal and Labor parties has got another think coming in the state of South Australia. It is a regional seat, it needs to stay regional and we need to have at least three regional seats in the state of South Australia.
But Ms Sharkie stated that there are some areas in which the bill could be strengthened, and I support very much what she said. The sufficient-foreign-tax test should become more stringent. Naturally, tax rates between countries will differ, but this bill proposes that the diverted profits tax would only activate when tax-reduction strategies result in a 20-per-cent-or-more reduction in total tax paid. That seems to be a very generous—if not exemption—threshold before action is taken. Imagine if you told the tax office, 'Look, my company is going to pay you within about 20 per cent of the tax, so we might pay you 20 per cent less than what we have to pay you.' I do not think the ATO would take too kindly to an Australian company that tried that tactic.
The Senate Economics Legislation Committee in its report on this legislation stated that competing views were expressed in relation to the 20 per cent tax-reduction threshold. The Corporate Tax Association and Group of 100 submitted that a 20 per cent tax reduction threshold meant that countries that are trading partners rather than tax havens will be tarred with the diverted profits tax brush.
By contrast, the Tax Justice Network-Australia was concerned that the 20 per cent threshold was too high:
...a multinational enterprise with profits of $100 million in Australia would be permitted to avoid up to $20 million before being caught by the DPT. Given the threshold test does not require the ATO to take action, but allows them to, provided they have cause to believe the test of the transaction lacking economic substance applies, a lower threshold allows the ATO more ability to take action
That is a very important consideration. Why should a multinational company have a 20 per cent leeway in the amount of tax it can pay when, as I indicated earlier, it would be untenable—indeed, laughable—if an Australian company said, 'Well, I'm 20 per cent out in terms of the tax we should pay, but you should leave us alone'? Effectively, that is the signal we are sending to those multinational companies.
My colleagues and I believe that this threshold should be lowered to 10 per cent such that, in the technical jargon, the foreign tax liabilities of foreign entities resulting from tax-avoidance schemes are 90 per cent or more of the reduction in the tax liability. This would also further reduce the incentive to shift genuinely Australian based businesses offshore just to take advantage of lower tax elsewhere. That is another important consideration. There are some Australian companies that are saying: 'If multinationals can avoid or minimise tax in a way that we cannot, why do we have to keep having our operations here in Australia? Why don't we think of shifting or having subsidiaries overseas in the Cayman Islands and other parts of the world where they can minimise their tax?'
I note that the Australian Greens have circulated an amendment to give effect to this and I indicate that my colleagues and I will support it and urge all others to do so as well. It is a much more sensible and pragmatic approach and it is fairer to Australian companies that otherwise would miss out by having that unlevel playing field.
This bill is only the starting point on a range of measures that the government should consider in strengthening Australia's ability to recover unpaid tax from multinationals. Multinational tax avoidance is particularly widespread in the area of the big technology giants. In 2014 an investigation by the Financial Review concluded that between 2002 and 2013 Apple had shifted an estimated $8.9 billion in unpaid taxes from its Australian operations to tax havens in Ireland. Although the numbers are secret, the tax-dodging strategy is not. The same investigation by the Financial Review referred to Apple Sales International's 2009 accounts, which state:
The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction … The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent.
Paying a four per cent tax rate is something that Australian companies would simply dream of, but the fact that Apple, through Apple Sales International and a tax haven in Ireland, can do so is completely unacceptable and is a disgrace. The huge multinationals Facebook and Google are no different. These two companies have a duopoly on online advertising that is only strengthened with every passing week and month. Digital advertising is the biggest source of advertising revenue in the local media sector, and I believe that many of us do not realise the commercial and social impact they are having.
It being 2 pm, we move to questions without notice.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Last week the Turnbull government made a submission to the Fair Work Commission on its decision to cut penalty rates which will see up to 700,000 workers lose up to $77 a week. Can the minister confirm that the government's submission supported a pay cut for some of Australia's lowest paid workers?
I can confirm that you are wrong, Senator. That was not the purpose of the submission. As you know, Senator Cameron, or as you ought to know, the government did not make a submission in relation to the substantive hearing of the matter because we acknowledge that this is a matter for the Fair Work Commission to determine, an independent umpire established by your side of politics, not by the government. However, the government did make a submission limited to the question of transitional arrangements. The submission—and I can give you some information on that submission—was filed with the Fair Work Commission last Friday, and it stated that any final determination by the Fair Work Commission would, and I quote:
… implement transitional arrangements which ensure the positive employment benefits flow to businesses and the Australian economy in a timely fashion, while at the same time taking into consideration the potential economic impact and effects on employees—
and mitigating any hardship that may be experienced.
So, Senator Cameron, far from the government making a submission of the kind you suggested, the government made no submission on the substantive matter. It made a submission asking the Fair Work Commission, in arranging for and making orders in relation to transitional matters, to ensure that it took into consideration the potential economic impact and effects on employees, and mitigating any hardship that may be experienced. The submission also asked the Fair Work Commission to ensure that transitional arrangements were as simple as possible so that they could be implemented in a way that was easy to understand and to execute by both businesses and employees.
Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
On Friday, Labor made a submission to the Fair Work Commission opposing any move to cut the penalty rates of 84,400 workers in the hairdressing and beauty industry. Did the Turnbull government do the same, or does it support a pay cut to the 84,000 workers in the hairdressing and beauty industry?
What we support, Senator Cameron, is the independence of the Fair Work Commission. It may very well be that the Australian Labor Party, as part of its latest round of political stunts, made a submission at a time when the Fair Work Commission was dealing with transitional arrangements in relation to the particular industry which you reference. The fact is the government does not seek to influence those outcomes, in relation to the substantive determinations of the Fair Work Commission, as it did not in relation to the determination on Sunday penalty rates. What it does, though, is respect the Fair Work Commission's independence, as should you, Senator Cameron. We know that you have spent your career in the industrial relations area, so you, Senator Cameron, more than anybody in this chamber, ought to understand the importance of respecting determinations by the umpire, but evidently you do not. (Time expired)
Senator Cameron, a further supplementary question.
I understand the importance of $77 a week to poor workers in this country. Why is the Prime Minister prepared to dig in and fight for his $50 billion handout to big business, but he refuses to advocate for ordinary workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet?
The very submission which you asked me about in your primary question, Senator, about transitional arrangements shows that the Prime Minister is doing that very thing, and I read you the quote. Your claim that the cuts in penalty rates go further than beyond the retail and hospitality industries is false. It is false. That is why I said to you, Senator Cameron, in answer to your first supplementary question that this was merely another Labor Party stunt. We know that we live—
Senator Cameron, on a point of order?
My point of order goes to relevance. The minister has gone nowhere near the question I asked. It was in relation to the $50 billion handout to big business and refusing to advocate for ordinary workers who rely on penalty rates. The minister should be drawn to the question.
There is no point of order. Your question was, 'Why is the Prime Minister prepared to dig in,' and the Attorney-General answered that question up-front, at the commencement of his question. He said that the Prime Minister is not doing such a thing.
The person who is doing the wrong thing by workers, Senator Cameron, is Mr Bill Shorten and you and the Labor frontbench by causing unnecessary concern on the part of workers in other industries. The Fair Work Commission in its determination on the retail and hospitality industries made it perfectly clear—it made it explicitly clear—that it would not extend to other industries. There you go filing a gratuitous submission, misleadingly suggesting that it would. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister outline what the government is doing to grow the Australian economy, encourage investment and create jobs?
I thank Senator Bushby for that question. The short answer is that the Turnbull government continue to implement our national economic plan for jobs and growth, and a key feature of that plan is to ensure that Australia can again have an internationally competitive business tax rate. That is because on this side of the parliament we understand that, if we want more jobs, we need to ensure that the businesses employing Australians can be as successful and as profitable as possible.
The Labor Party talks about jobs; we actually want the economy to deliver more jobs. We want Australians to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. Jobs do not grow on trees. Jobs are created by successful, profitable businesses. By helping ensure that we have a more growth-friendly tax system, by helping ensure that businesses can keep more of their own money, not the government's money—when Senator Cameron talks about 'government giveaways', he is assuming that this is all the government's money—we are saying that we want to allow businesses across Australia to keep more of their money so that they can reinvest it in their future success so that, as they are more successful, they can employ more Australians and pay them better wages.
In the end, the only way you can have more jobs in Australia is if the businesses of Australia can be more successful. If we want to ensure that the businesses across Australia can be as successful as possible, we need to ensure that they can compete with businesses in other parts of the world. Now, 4.4 million Australians are employed by businesses generating turnover of up to $50 million. These are not multinational businesses; these are businesses in our communities that are employing 4.4 million Australians. By supporting a more competitive business tax rate, you will help secure their jobs, and you will help ensure they get better wages over time.
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Why is it so important that the government reduce the tax burden on business to grow the economy?
For the Australian economy to continue to grow, we need to continue to attract investment. While in the past our corporate tax rate has been internationally competitive, we are now towards the bottom of the pile. There are only five countries in the OECD out of 35 that have a higher corporate tax rate than Australia. One of them, the United States, has already flagged that it will reduce its corporate tax rate from 35 per cent down to 15 per cent. The average across the OECD is actually 25 per cent.
If the parliament were to support the 10-year Enterprise Tax Plan of the Turnbull government, it would take us 10 years to get to the average position of OECD countries. We would not be at the head of the queue. We would not be right up there in front of the queue leading the charge in lower corporate taxes. We would be middle of the road. Australia as an economy needs to continue to attract investment. We cannot afford to not be in a competitive position with other countries in the world when it comes to attracting capital investment. (Time expired)
Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
What else has the government been doing to make our company tax system fairer and more competitive?
The government is cracking down on multinational tax avoidance to ensure that businesses that generate profits here in Australia pay their fair share of tax here in Australia, consistent with our laws. That is of course why we passed antiavoidance laws back in December 2015—which Labor opposed, incidentally—which have given additional powers to the tax commissioner not only to impose increased penalties but also to see through contrived business arrangements which saw businesses divert profits into other jurisdictions.
I am pleased to report that our laws which Labor opposed, our laws designed to crack down on multinational tax avoidance, are actually working. For example, Facebook are now booking their Australian revenue in Australia, not in Ireland. Google have also changed their arrangements and restructured to repatriate profits to Australia. But of course we have not stopped there. The diverted profits tax legislation currently before the parliament puts a new tax on profits— (Time expired)
I am making a habit of asking questions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Last week the leader of the Liberal Party's preferred partner, One Nation, said, 'Islam is a disease; we need to vaccinate ourselves against that,' and promoted the hashtag 'Pray4MuslimBan'. Was the Prime Minister correct when he said, 'Demonising the Muslim community or attributing to all Muslims the responsibility for the crimes of a tiny percentage is exactly what the terrorists want'?
The Prime Minister was absolutely correct to say that—absolutely correct to say that. With all due respect to Senator Hanson, I think she was quite wrong to make the observation that she made. I might say to you, Mr President, that the advice that I have received for as long as I have been the Attorney, which is 3½ years now, from both ASIO and the Australian Federal Police is that constructive engagement with Islamic leaders, with Muslim leaders, in Australia is absolutely vital to their work in anticipating the conduct of terrorists and terrorist recruiters and terrorist financiers in Australian Islamic communities and stopping it. So I would implore all members of the Senate, every last single member of the Senate—through you, Mr President—including you, Senator Hanson, when making the observations you do, which you are perfectly entitled to make about multiculturalism, to remember that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Australian Muslim community are peace-loving, patriotic, loyal Australians whose cooperation we badly need.
Senator Dastyari, a supplementary question.
Given that Senator Sinodinos has endorsed One Nation as being 'more sophisticated', has the Prime Minister counselled Senator Sinodinos about the danger of endorsing One Nation and its policies?
Senator Dastyari, you begin with a very important and valuable question, and unfortunately you follow it up with a foolish, undergraduate question, as if a comment by Senator Hanson on one issue—which I regret and the Prime Minister regrets—amounts to the entirety of One Nation's contribution to Australian politics or to this chamber. I entirely agree with what Senator Sinodinos has had to say and have had similar things to say myself. In terms of its contribution in this chamber, Senator Dastyari, I am bound to say Senator Hanson and her colleagues have made a more sophisticated contribution than the level of sophistication evident in your supplementary question.
Senator Dastyari, a final supplementary question.
If Prime Minister Turnbull thinks One Nation is saying—and I quote him—'exactly what the terrorists want', when will he stop helping One Nation get elected and direct all branches of the Liberal Party to put One Nation last?
Senator Dastyari, you are the one who attacks others for demonising people. Do not demonise people yourself. The fact is that there is represented in this chamber a variety of points of view, including the point of view represented by One Nation. Nearly one million Australians voted for the One Nation party at the 2016 election. I will defend Senator Hanson's right to make her contribution, but, on occasions when I think she is quite wrong, as I think she was quite wrong in the observation you referenced in your initial question, I will say so.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order on both sides! Senator Seselja, Senator Cameron and Senator Wong!
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. The campaign to retake Mosul has now entered its sixth month. Given the recent reports of casualties in areas of west Mosul which are densely populated, can the minister update the Senate on the campaign to defeat Daesh in Iraq?
I thank Senator Fawcett very much for his question. The Iraqi security forces are making steady progress in the campaign to retake west Mosul, but it is a very difficult operation which is made more complex by the dense urban environment and, frankly, the desperate actions of Daesh. Daesh's actions have further complicated the operating environment in west Mosul and heightened the risk to civilians. Daesh's desperate tactics, for which they have been condemned by the Iraqi government, include trapping residents in their own homes to prevent them from leaving the city and using them as human shields. Ground forces remain under direct attack from Daesh fighters, who continue to threaten the civilian population and are absolutely determined to maintain their hold over the city. Coalition air support remains necessary to enable the Iraqi security forces, including the Iraqi Counter Terrorism Service, to clear Daesh out of Mosul.
All Australian defence personnel operate under strict rules of engagement designed to protect our forces, minimise the risk to civilians and comply with Australia's obligations under international law. Prior to any air strike, the Australian Air Task Group undertakes a detailed and robust process that includes approvals from both Australian and Iraqi authorities. I am aware of allegations that a coalition air strike in west Mosul on 17 March resulted in civilian casualties. Based on the information that is currently available to us, I am advised that Australian strike aircraft were not involved in the air strike in question. As you will appreciate, it takes time to fully determine the details of a complex incident like this involving multiple aircraft from multiple nations. The ADF takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously. If an allegation is raised following an ATG strike, the matter is investigated and the findings are reported.
Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate of how Australian forces are contributing to the campaign?
Indeed, Australia continues to make one of the largest contributions to the counter-Daesh campaign. As I mentioned in my previous response, the Air Task Group, which comprises our F/A-18 Hornet strike aircraft, our E-7A Wedgetail intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft and the KC-30A air-to-air refuelling tanker, continues to support those operations to liberate Mosul. Up to 300 ADF personnel are contributing to the combined Australia-New Zealand building partner capacity mission, providing training to Iraqi security forces in Taji. To date, more than 20,000 Iraqi trainees have graduated since training began in May 2015, including over 3,000 police trainees more recently, and there are currently more than 1,400 trainees conducting this important work. Additionally, the Special Operations Task Group, which comprises up to 80 ADF personnel, continues to provide advice and assistance to the Iraqi CTS, and up to 30 Australian personnel are embedded in coalition positions in Iraq.
Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.
Could the minister explain how else Australia is contributing to the global campaign to defeat Daesh?
(—) (): In addition to our military contribution, the Australian government is also working to stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters in and out of Iraq and Syria and to stop the flow of funding to terrorist groups. As fighting escalates in Mosul, we are very cognisant of the threats posed by the link between Daesh in Iraq and Syria and South-East Asia. I discussed this with my Indonesian counterpart in our recent meeting and I raised it at the counter-ISIL defence ministers meeting in Brussels in February. This government is working closely with our partners in the region to address this threat. We have, for example, an agreement with Malaysia to share intelligence on returning foreign terrorist fighters. We are also supporting the Philippines so that they can contribute to counterterrorism, share intelligence and stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. We are also mindful of the humanitarian disaster in Syria and also in Iraq. Since 2011, Australia has contributed almost $500 million to support not only those who are directly affected by the conflict but also those countries around Iraq and Syria who are hosting large numbers of refugees. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Minister Canavan. I refer to reports on a major current affairs program on Sunday night that concluded that the Great Barrier Reef is on life support and, without urgent intervention, its days are numbered. There are now reports that every reef between Townsville and Cairns has bleached. So, Minister, I ask you this question: what is the threshold for walking away from funding the Adani mine and does every piece of coral need to die before you step in to stop this climate-destroying, jobs-killing, polluting coalmine?
I thank Senator Di Natale for his question. I too share concerns about the health of the Great Barrier Reef. I live on the Great Barrier Reef. The people of North Queensland want to see the Great Barrier Reef protected and thrive because it is such an important asset for our community both in economic terms and in environmental terms. No-one wants to do harm to the reef, Senator Di Natale. But I would point out that in terms of our mining sector and Australia's coalmining contribution we do have some of the highest quality coals in the world. It is important that our coals are available for use, because the rest of the world will still use coal-fired power, Senator Di Natale. They will simply be using coals of lower energy intensity. They will have to burn more for every unit of electricity, and there will be more carbon emissions as a result of that, which is something I am sure you do not want and we do not want either.
That is not just my view; it is not just the view of the Australian government. It is also the view of the Queensland Supreme Court, where this issue came up. Green activities took these concerns to the court and Justice McMurdo said that, if the mine that is the Adani mine proceeded, it would not increase the amount of global greenhouse gasses or any environmental impact resulting from those gasses. As a second respondent submitter, the finding of the Land Court was not that there was replacement harm but that there would be the same or greater harm if the mine did not proceed than if it did proceed. Senator Di Natale, that is pretty clear. That is the view of the Queensland Supreme Court, which rightfully and properly refers to the fact that, if we do not supply coal to the rest of the world, other people will, other countries will—mines in Indonesia will, mines in South Africa will, mines in India will and mines in China will as well. We are lucky that God has given us a very high quality coal, and we should make it available to the rest of the world to provide power to help other economies create economic growth and also to lower their environmental impact from higher quality coals.
Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.
Drug dealers also argue that if they do not sell their product someone else will. Adani and government spruikers for the Carmichael coal project claim tens of thousands of jobs will be created by the project, but when they were forced—
Government senators interjecting—
Order, on my right! Senator Di Natale, commence your question again.
Adani and government spruikers for the Carmichael coal project claim that tens of thousands of jobs will be created by the project, but when they were forced to take an oath before the court they had to admit it was only 1,400 jobs. Compare that with the 70,000 tourism jobs along the Great Barrier Reef, if the project goes ahead and the reef dies. Has the minister held discussions with the Queensland tourism industry on this, and are they happy to lose 48 jobs for every one job created in Central Queensland?
Yes, I have spoken to the Queensland tourism industry about these issues, but I reject the premise of your question, Senator Di Natale, that somehow these two things are inconsistent. The tourism industry you refer to is very important to the North Queensland economy, and it has largely been built up alongside and in parallel with significant increases in coalmining in Queensland. We have developed that tourism industry, alongside the developments in the Bowen Basin, alongside the coal developments in the Surat Basin. I would posit to you, Mr President, they are not completely unrelated. We have many beautiful areas in this country, and the Great Barrier Reef is a prime one, but a key driver of a strong tourism sector will be to have strong residential communities close to those sectors that are able to holiday there and go there. The fact that our mining sector brings thousands of people to Central Queensland, thousands of people to North Queensland, allows our tourism industry to market their services to those people who have a job, who can afford to go to the reef and actually enjoy the wonderful splendour that exists there. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Reports today indicate that you, minister, are looking at stopping environment groups who are campaigning against Adani by limiting their tax deductibility status. Is this an acknowledgement that the so-called champions of free speech now have to resort to muzzling environment groups if they are going to see this coalmine get off the ground and protect their big donor mates?
The senator might not be aware, but there has been in the last year a House of Representatives inquiry making recommendations about those tax deductions, and recommendations were supported by both major parties in limiting or redefining those deductions. I will leave the relevant minister to comment further on that report, but obviously it is under consideration in terms of a response. I also think in today's paper another interesting fact is that people support building coal-fired power stations. They like the fact that coal produces cheap power, reliable power, that provides jobs and that can also be environmentally sustainable. Indeed, what I found interesting is that 15 per cent of Greens supporters also want the federal government to fund coal-fired power stations. They are obviously not listening to Senator Di Natale. I think they are in the Senator Rhiannon faction of the Greens, because good Stalinists love coal! You do not create a communist state without coal. You do not create the Industrial Revolution and a proletariat without coal.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Pause the clock. Senator Di Natale, a point of order.
Senator Canavan made an unparliamentary statement towards one of our colleagues, and I would ask him to withdraw.
Government senators interjecting—
Order, on my right! I do not believe the statement was unparliamentary, Senator Di Natale. Senator Canavan, have you concluded your remarks?
Yes, I have concluded.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Given the Prime Minister has indicated that his government supports a pay cut of up to $77 a week for up to 700,000 of Australia's lowest paid workers, what work has the government undertaken on the overall economic and budgetary impact of the pay cut?
Sorry, Senator Urquhart, I am just not going to indulge your fancy. The Prime Minister has said no such thing, and your assertion that he has done so is not the truth. What the Prime Minister has said and what the government says is that we should respect the decision of an independent umpire in determining wages and conditions. You know, Senator Urquhart, because you were a backbench member of the government that created the Fair Work Commission, that it was established for the very purpose of being an independent umpire. That is why it exists. That is why you set it up. If you are going to respect the decisions of an independent umpire then you have to—
Order. Pause the clock. A point of order, Senator Gallagher.
Mr President, it is on relevance. The question was: 'What work has the government undertaken on the overall economic and budgetary impact of the pay cut?'
The preamble to that question was 'given that the Prime Minister has endorsed the pay cut', and the Attorney-General rejected that completely in the beginning of his question. The Attorney-General has been directly relevant.
Whether you like the decision or whether you do not, Senator Urquhart, if you are going to respect the industrial relations system, and if you are going to respect the rule of law, you ought to respect the decisions of an independent umpire.
You asked me what the government is doing in relation to the matter. You touch upon the issue which Senator Cameron raised. The government last Friday made a submission to the Fair Work Commission on transitional arrangements. I do not know if you were listening when I answered Senator Cameron's question, but one of the things that the government submitted to the Fair Work Commission in dealing with the transitional arrangements—in other words, the arrangements to give effect to the implementation stage of its determination—was to ask the commission to take into consideration the potential economic impact and effects on employees and to take into effect the importance of mitigating any hardship that might be experienced. As well, the government asked the Fair Work Commission to ensure that transitional arrangements were made as simple as possible so that they could be executed in a way that was understandable to the employees. The transitional— (Time expired)
Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question.
Modelling by the Australia Institute has revealed that penalty rate cuts could cost the Commonwealth budget $650 million over four years. Does the Turnbull government intend to cut services, increase taxes or increase debt to fill the budget black hole resulting from the pay cut it supports?
Good heavens! We are hearing a Labor senator lecture this government about debt! May I remind you that when you were last elected to government there was no public debt. There was no public debt. When you were thrown out unceremoniously six years later, we inherited the worst set of public accounts in Australia's history. The debt position today would be immeasurably worse, Senator Urquhart, if your side of politics were in power. So, Senator Urquhart, rather than coming here into the Senate and bleating about government debt, why don't you get out of the way and stop blocking the savings measures that this government is taking to try and repair Labor's debt?
Senator Urquhart, the fact is you referenced the Australia Institute, a well-known left-wing think tank. I do not take at face value anything that the Australia Institute may have to contribute on this subject or others.
Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question.
Why is the Turnbull government so desperate to see a pay cut to some of Australia's lowest paid workers that it is willing to take a budget hit to achieve it?
Senator Urquhart, I am sorry—this might be tedious—but every time you tell a lie I am going to point out the truth. The fact of the matter is that the Turnbull government made no submission to the Fair Work Commission recommending a reduction in Sunday penalty rates.
Senator Gallacher, a point of order?
The point of order is that Senator Brandis is accusing another senator of a direct lie. That is against the instructions you have issued to the temporary chair and members in the Senate about the use of the word 'lie'.
Thank you very much, Senator Gallacher. I was probably too busy writing. Senator Brandis, it would help if you withdrew.
If it helps, Mr President, I will. Senator Urquhart, every time you mislead the Senate I will set the record straight. But I am surprised you asked that question. You know that the government made no submission to the Fair Work Commission recommending a reduction in Sunday penalty rates—none whatsoever. You also know that the Turnbull government last Friday made a submission to the Fair Work Commission, on the transition and implementation arrangements, that it should take into consideration the economic impact and the effects on low-income earners in mitigating any hardship that may be experienced. That is the submission the government has taken, but we do say, and will say so time and again, that we respect the integrity and the independence of the Fair Work Commission.
My question is for the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Justice Mohr, a former Navy stoker who rose to become a major general and later a judge in the Supreme Court of South Australia, was perhaps the most appropriate person to conduct a review into warlike service and service entitlements and, as such, was appointed to conduct a review to be later known as the Mohr review. Because of his deep understanding of service life and his analytical skills, Justice Mohr found that either the Navy got it right and the Army and Air Force got it wrong or the opposite was true. By this I mean that, in correcting the allocation of servicemen to zones attributed to war service or active service, the Clarke review was accepted by the government because it allowed the deception to continue that combat troops were not deployed to hostile environments outside of Vietnam. Minister, can you advise the house why the government commissioned the Mohr review and the recognition of service for veterans in 2000 and then, when it did not like the outcome which was in favour of the veterans, commissioned the Clarke review in 2002?
I thank Senator Burston for his question and for giving me some notice of that. I do recognise that this is a matter of significant interest for the senator and acknowledge the adjournment speech he gave to the Senate on this matter last week. All Australian Defence Force service is appropriately classified in accordance with the legislation and the policies that existed at the time of service. Defence is aware that there are claims of perceived anomalies with regard to classification of past service. Where these are brought to Defence's attention, they are investigated and remediated as appropriate.
I would say through you, Mr President, to the senator that the two reviews which are referred to in his question were indeed unrelated in scope. The Mohr review, to which he has referred, looked at claimed anomalies in respect of South-East Asian service from 1955 to 1975 with a focus on medallic recognition. Of the submissions received, written submissions totalled 750 and 400 oral submissions were made at public hearings. The comprehensive report was received, and it said:
Representatives of the major ex-Service organisations that made submissions to the Review indicated their general acceptance of its independence, and any subsequent recommendation.
The second review—the Clarke review of veterans' entitlements of January 2003—encompassed a review of repatriation legislation and some perceived anomalies in the entitlements legislation. It consulted extensively with the ex-service community, held many meetings between May and September of 2002 and considered over 3,000 submissions. It became, at the time, very clear to the committee that there was much misunderstanding about the system and the applicable legislation. The committee made 109 recommendations across the range of issues it considered in terms of those perceived anomalies, access to veterans entitlements and level of benefits and support provided to— (Time expired)
Senator Burston, a supplementary question.
Can the minister explain to the chamber why the government continues to take a position that soldiers deployed outside of Vietnam on war service or on active service but with the same rules of engagement as in Vietnam are not afforded the service entitlements consistent with soldiers who have been deployed on war service or on active service yet affords full war service entitlements to other who have served in Thailand and Diego Garcia?
I indicate to the senator that I am advised that there were no soldiers who deployed on war service or active service outside of Vietnam with the same rules of engagement as Vietnam who were not recognised in the same way as those who served in Vietnam.
Senator Burston, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister explain to the chamber when the government will move to correct the anomalies relating to service in Vietnam, Malaysia and East Timor by establishing an expert panel comprising of people who will consider the full evidence available? Of course, such a panel would exclude members from government or Defence.
I can advise the Senate that all those claimed anomalies in relation to ADF service, including those which have been raised by Senator Burston, have indeed been reviewed by independent committees. I have referred to the work of both the Clarke committee and the Mohr committee. While reviews have been established by the federal government, as they must be, they comprise independent experts outside of Defence. Just to reinforce that, the Mohr committee comprised Judge Mohr, as referred to by the senator, and Rear Admiral Pete Kennedy, AO, RAN, retired. The Clarke review, as well as having the Hon. John Clarke QC as the chair, had Air Marshal Douglas Riding, AO, DFC, and Dr David Rosalky. That is the constitution of those committees. I am happy as well—through you, Mr President—to offer Senator Burston a personal briefing, if that would be of assistance, from the relevant part of Defence.
I would like to take this opportunity to offer Senator MacDonald and all those in North Queensland facing Cyclone Debbie all the best as that proceeds.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Following reports today that there is strong community support for new coal-fired power stations, can you confirm that the government is considering the construction of a new coal-fired power station to put downward pressure on electricity prices and maintain the reliability of the network?
I thank Senator Williams for his question. I, too, would like to echo the government's sentiments supporting and thinking about those people facing Cyclone Debbie in North Queensland.
The government is focused on doing everything we can to create jobs and bring down the cost of living for Australians and to improve the environmental sustainability of our energy network. We need cheap sources of power to create jobs. We need cheap sources of power to keep downward pressure on people's electricity bills. Coal remains one of the cheapest forms of power. That is why the government is open to considering new coal-fired power stations around our country.
They are already working in our country, of course. They produce 70 per cent of the electricity on our eastern seaboard and 60 per cent nationally, and they are working right around the world too. Indeed, for the latest coal-fired power technology, ultrasupercritical coal-fired power, which burns coal at higher temperatures and has roughly 20 per cent to 30 per cent lower emissions, there are 123 of these units operating right around the world. And there are just over another 100 in planning for construction or operation very soon as well.
This is working. I was in Japan in the last fortnight at the Isogo ultrasupercritical coal-fired power station. They had virtually no pollution at all. They had no particulate dust matter being emitted to a decimal point of parts per million of air. Their nitrous oxide results were only 0.06 grams per kilowatt hour, and their sulfur oxide was only 0.01 grams per kilowatt hour as well. It is a clean coal-fired power station. It does all of this while reducing its emissions from its previous plant by 17 per cent as well.
What is wrong with clean coal? It creates jobs, it provides reliable power and it cuts emissions as well. It ticks all the boxes. That is why the government is focused on providing power that creates jobs in our economy and brings down prices.
Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
Noting that many countries around the world are building clean-coal power stations, can the minister inform the Senate of the contribution clean-coal technology could make to the affordability and reliability of Australia's energy mix?
The senator is exactly right: many countries, as I said in my answer to the previous question, are building these latest coal-fired power stations around the world. If we were to replace our own coal-fired fleet with this latest technology, it would reduce our emissions in our coal-fired sector by about 21 per cent to 27 per cent. India has also made the decision to make sure all of its new coal-fired power stations are supercritical or above. It is also retrofitting some of its older coal-fired power stations with supercritical technology.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
I will take that interjection—'Who is proposing the technology?' Dr Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, says that:
We believe that there are a lot of low-emissions technologies and combinations with storage that are the future …
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to listen to the answer to the question I have asked Senator Canavan. Could you please keep Senator Whish-Wilson quiet or remove him from the chamber.
Order! I remind all senators to not interject and to allow the questioner and the answer to be heard.
As I was saying, Dr Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, said:
I think that existing coal, and new coal, with CCS, is a very legitimate low emissions technology.
Dr Daniel Roberts from the CSIRO said, 'We really think that if you get some good high-efficiency low-emission coal-fired power stations as part of the grid that is a really good way of maximising the amount of renewables.' You would think, therefore, that the Greens would also be supporting these new technologies. (Time expired)
Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any alternative energy policies?
Renewable energy!
Senator Whish-Wilson!
There is a cabal in this place that is combining to try to shut down coal-fired power stations in Australia. We know that members of the Greens have always had that view. But last week the Labor Party also supported a motion in this place saying that coal is on the decline and that we should walk away from coal-fired power and walk away from 70 per cent of our electricity supply.
The Labor Party are turning their backs on the 44,000 Australians who work in our coalmining sector. Those 44,000 Australians help produce much of the energy resources that power the world. They are good, hardworking Australians who deserve representation in this place. You would think they would get it from the Australian Labor Party; you would think the Australian Labor Party would be supporting coalmining workers—but they are not, in their alliance with the Greens; we are supporting a coalmining sector, because we believe that we must have cheap and affordable energy supplies for our nation but that it can also guarantee good high-paying jobs.
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. On Friday, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, FECCA, gave evidence to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the government's Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Does the minister agree with the chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, Joseph Caputo OAM, who says, 'the proposed changes send a strong signal that racism is acceptable'?
Well, if that is what the gentleman said, I entirely disagree with it. In fact, I think it sends a very strong signal that racism is unacceptable that we are strengthening this law.
Senator Singh, a supplementary question.
It has been reported that government members of that committee refused to allow the Aboriginal Legal Service to give evidence on watering down section 18C, to that same inquiry. Does the minister support that decision?
Senator, I am not aware of that. I know that the inquiry was time-limited; as to the way in which was conducted, I was not there, I was not watching it, and I am not in a position to comment on the way in which the proceedings transpired.
Senator Singh, a final supplementary question.
Why is the government ignoring the concerns of multicultural Australia and Indigenous Australians, and weakening protections from racism—just to satisfy ideologues on its backbench and One Nation?
We are strengthening protections against racism by introducing as a new species of prohibited conduct the concept of racial harassment. As you have heard me say before, Senator Singh: what kind of anti-racial-discrimination statute is there that omits to mention racial harassment as one of the prohibited species of conduct?
What sort of attorney-general defends the rights of the bigots?
Senator Singh, I am trying to address you but I cannot hear myself speak through the yelling of Senator Wong.
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
I will repeat it so it is on the record: what sort of attorney defends the rights of the bigots?
There is no point of order, Senator Wong. That is not a point of order.
Any attorney worthy of the name defends the rights of all Australians under the law. Senator Singh, what sort of anti-racism statute omits reference to racial harassment? And yet the Racial Discrimination Act by section 18C fails to do that. So what we are doing is we are strengthening the Racial Discrimination Act while at the same time removing from it its anti-free-speech provisions.
My question is to the very able Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister inform the Senate how the government's childcare package will support low-and middle income families in Australia?
I thank the most-extraordinary senator from Western Australia, Senator Smith, for his question. Thanks to the reforms of the Turnbull government, help is on the way for the hardest-working Australian families. Thanks to our childcare reforms in the legislation that passed the House of Representatives earlier today, around one million Australian families will be the greatest beneficiaries of the most comprehensive reforms to Australia's childcare system seen in decades.
These reforms will abolish the current $7½ thousand childcare rebate cap that so many Australian families fall over the cliff of, mid-financial year, meaning they run into all sorts of problems juggling work and family obligations and meeting the cost of child care. The reforms will recalibrate childcare subsidies to provide a higher rate of subsidy to low- and middle-income families, ensuring real benefits—in terms of thousands of dollars of benefits—flow through to the lowest-income Australian families. They will put downward pressure on childcare fees in future, through an hourly rate cap mechanism that will ensure the incessant fee increases we have seen in relation to child care become a thing of the past, once fully implemented. They put in place a strong safety net for the most vulnerable children, while also ensuring there are reductions in red tape and enhanced capabilities for childcare services to offer more flexible hours, more flexible services, and actually deliver services that suit their communities in the future. They also come with new compliance powers which can ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money in the future—of course, coupled with the activity-testing regime that makes sure that the greatest numbers of subsidised hours go to the hardest-working families, as we are equally ensuring the greatest level of subsidy goes to the lowest-income families. A family on $60,000 a year can expect to be more than $2,000 better off as a result of our reforms, carefully targeted to those who need it—
Thank you, Minister; the time for answering the question has expired. Senator Smith, a supplementary question.
A supplementary question to the very, very able minister: will he advise the Senate how the package will support children in regional and rural Australia, with particular attention to Indigenous children?
Much has been said about the transition of budget-based services in particular under this package. Senator Smith, Senator McKenzie—many of my colleagues and others, in this chamber and in the other place, have been strong advocates for regional and rural services in particular, and making sure that they are protected. There are around 300 of these so-called budget-based funded services providing early education and care, particularly in remote and rural Australia or for Indigenous children. The current model is a capped and closed funded program, but for the first time under our reforms these services will be able to access the new childcare subsidy, as well as the new additional childcare subsidy, whilst we are also guaranteeing continued budget funding for them of equal amount. This means these valuable services in rural and regional Australia and in Indigenous communities can be nothing but better off as a result of the Turnbull government's reforms, providing important early education opportunities in some of the most remote and vulnerable areas of Australia.
Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate if he is aware of any alternative policies?
Reflecting back on the debate this chamber had last week, it is quite insightful to look at the different positions that were taken around the chamber. We saw Senator Xenophon and Senator Hanson seek and secure assurances in relation to the remote services that I mentioned before. We saw the Greens move amendments. We saw Senator Hinch move an amendment. We saw Senator Leyonhjelm move an amendment and Senator Lambie propose an amendment. But what did those opposite in the Labor Party do? Did they come in here with any amendments, any alternative proposals? Not one single amendment from those opposite. All they did was oppose, all it was was negativity, because they have had not one constructive idea in this place.
Whilst disappointed at their lack of constructive ideas in relation to child care can I on the record though note approvingly of one unrelated matter from the opposition—Senator Farrell's tie today. I endorse what I suspect is the sentiment from Senator Farrell of cheering on the AFL women's premiers, the Adelaide Crows. (Time expired)
Over the weekend, the United States government took responsibility for air strikes in western Mosul that may have killed more than 200 civilians, most of them women, children and the elderly. This marks the deadliest atrocity thus far since the US intervened again in the conflict in 2014. Mosul's mayor has said that these repeated mistakes will make the mission to liberate Mosul from Daesh harder and will push civilians still living under Daesh to be uncooperative with the security forces.
The minister, in her answer to Senator Fawcett earlier, ruled out involvement by Australian fighter aircraft. Can she also rule out involvement by Australian Wedgetail aircraft or other surveillance or targeting capabilities?
I thank Senator Ludlam for his question. As I also indicated in my response to Senator Fawcett earlier, it does take some time to fully determine the detail of a complex incident such as this. There are multiple nations and multiple aircraft involved. In terms of working with the US Central Command, we will continue to do that as the matter is investigated, and we will report those outcomes as they are known. At this stage, I have no further information.
Senator Ludlam, a supplementary question.
Minister, unless you are happy to clarify, I would have to take that as a no. You cannot rule it out. The attack happened on 17 March. There is no ambiguity about when it occurred. It should have taken one phone call. The US maintains that it has not changed its rules of engagement, but President Trump's decision to abrogate his responsibility as Commander in Chief and delegate authority for launching strikes to commanders in the field has led to significantly more casualties in Iraq and Syria. Does Australia support this change by the US and are Australian forces bound to these same changes?
The arrangements for the United States are a matter for them. What I indicated in relation to our own rules of engagement is that Australian Defence Force personnel operate under strict rules of engagement which are designed to protect our forces, to minimise the risk to civilians and to comply with Australia's obligations under international law. Prior to any air strike, the Australian Air Task Group undertakes a detailed and robust process that includes approvals from both Australian and Iraqi authorities. Once a mission is complete and the aircraft have returned, we review each Australian air strike to ensure it was conducted according to those pre-strike approvals. I assure Senator Ludlam that the Australian Defence Force takes all allegations of civilian casualties very seriously. If an allegation is raised following an Air Task Group strike, the matter is investigated and the findings are reported.
Senator Ludlam, a final supplementary question.
I wonder if the minister might inform the Senate how long she intends it to take for this investigation to occur? Late last year the Australian government passed legislation that weakened the safeguards protecting civilians when our forces are involved in overseas conflicts like Iraq and Syria. Was this move made in anticipation of the Trump administration's dangerous relaxing of civilian protections in conflict?
The Australian government's decisions in relation to targeting in the counter-Daesh coalition efforts in Iraq and Syria were judgements made entirely on our own watch and in relation to advice received from the ADF. Those judgements were made in broad consultation with senior members of the government. In relation to the United States assertions and statements that Senator Ludlam has made, they have no bearing whatsoever on those decisions.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. On Friday, Prime Minister Turnbull recommitted to his government's $50 billion company tax cuts after Treasurer Morrison had spent the week trying to back away from that plan. Can Australians take the events of last week as proof that reports that Treasurer Morrison was being sidelined ahead of the May budget were in fact correct?
Any such reports were wrong. The government's position is as stated by the Prime Minister.
Senator Collins, a supplementary question.
Minister, I refer to one of the Treasurer's Liberal frontbench colleagues who says, 'He'll need to perform or he's out.' Is the Prime Minister's intervention an indication that he too thinks the Treasurer is underperforming?
I am not going to dignify an unattributed and anonymous remark, asserting to be true by you, with a response.
Senator Collins, a final supplementary question.
Thank you, Mr President; he will need to take that up with News Limited! One Liberal frontbencher has said in relation to Treasurer Morrison, 'He could hang on but it's his to lose.' Will the Prime Minister rule out swearing-in a new Treasurer following the May budget, or does the Prime Minister agree that it is 'his to lose'?
There will not be any more response to such an asinine question than to say that what you say is entirely idiotic.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Can the minister please inform the Senate how the Turnbull government is using its overseas development assistance aid to tackle the high rates of tuberculosis in the Indo-Pacific region?
I thank Senator Reynolds for her question. Of course, this is a timely question, because last Friday was World Tuberculosis Day. TB is still a major issue worldwide. Over 10 million people per annum contract TB, and, worse, about 1.8 million die from it. TB kills more people than any other infectious disease—more than Ebola or even HIV/AIDS—and, of course, it is particularly prevalent in our neighbourhood. Our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, has about 28,000 cases of TB per annum, and we have committed about $60 million between 2011 and 2017 to combat this, with a comprehensive package of practical measures to improve TB control in Papua New Guinea, most especially drug-resistant TB. It is producing tangible results and we are seeing that more people are staying and taking their medications over the requisite six-month period, and that is very good to see.
In addition to supporting countries like Papua New Guinea directly, we are also contributing internationally, with $220 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria over 2017 to 2019, and that is a 10 per cent increase on a previous pledge. The grants by the Global Fund have resulted in over 16½ million people being treated for tuberculosis, including over eight million people in our region, since 2002. We are also investing in cutting-edge research and development via our product development partnerships and we have invested about $30 million into that, and this, of course, is drawing investments that bring new drug-resistant TB treatments to the market. (Time expired)
Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.
Can the minister outline to the Senate why it is important to fight the prevalence of TB in our region?
(—) (): Australia has one of the lowest infection rates for TB in the world. It is a disease that we have beaten along with smallpox and polio, but it continues to strain the health systems and take lives especially in the countries in our region—on our very doorstep in Papua New Guinea, particularly in the Western Province, which is very worrying given the re-emergence of drug-resistant TB. The World Health Organization estimates close to half a million cases of drug-resistant TB are occurring every year. Also worrying is the fact that only one in four cases are actually diagnosed and, even more worrying, only one in 10 cases are actually successfully treated. It strains the health systems of our neighbours—for example, Kiribati has the fifth largest incident rate per capita. (Time expired)
Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister also explain how the actions taken by the Australian government to prevent and treat TB are of direct benefit to Australia?
Fighting and beating back TB is not only good because it is helping our neighbouring countries but also vital for economic stability and health security in the Indo-Pacific region. Helping to strengthen the health systems of our neighbours will strengthen our regional preparedness and the capacity to deal with emerging health threats not just of TB but of other existing diseases, and of course diseases do not know boundaries. With an increasing number of Australians travelling in our region, we are seeing an increasing number of cases, and for that reason we do need a strong, resilient and healthy region. For this reason, we are establishing a regional health security initiative, where we are going to meet our election commitment of $100 million over five years. We want our region to be healthy, because it is in Australia's national security interests. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cameron and Urquhart today relating to penalty rates.
For anyone listening in, if you want to know the difference between a party that cares for ordinary families and workers in this country and a party who has absolutely no concern for ordinary families, look at Labor and the coalition. The coalition do not care about families that will lose penalty rates. The coalition do not care about families that rely on social security. The coalition do not have a bone in their body that worries about the implications of the ideological decisions on ordinary working families in this country. The coalition have an opportunity this week to support Labor's bill in this place to overcome the wrong decision by the Fair Work Commission that will take away from some of the poorest workers in this country—not just some of them but 700,000—and yet Senator Brandis today even tried to deny that they support the decision and that the Prime Minister supports the decision of the Fair Work Commission.
Senator Brandis says that the Prime Minister has never supported a cut to penalty rates. But I say that Senator Brandis should go and listen to the interview between the Prime Minister and Neil Mitchell on 3AWon 17 March 2017, when the Prime Minister said, 'Well, we do support it, Neil, and I've been very clear about that.' That is what the Prime Minister said, and Senator Brandis was just wrong. Senator Brandis is someone who is not unused to trying to mislead the Senate on a number of issues, but this is another misleading of the Senate. The Prime Minister was clear, and he went on later to say, 'The Fair Work Commission decided to back small business and we back small business.' So that is the position of this mob over here. They want to cut the wages of the lowest paid workers in this country.
When you see industrial groups like the AiG, the Australian Industry Group, going to the commission and arguing for cuts to penalty rates then you have to wonder who is next, because the Australian Industry Group are predominantly in metals and manufacturing. They have argued that penalty rates should be cut. As a former blue-collar worker in the manufacturing industry I know how important it is for manufacturing workers to have access to their penalty rates to be able to take home a decent rate of pay to make sure that their kids have a meal on the table, they can have a holiday once in a blue moon and they can take their kids on an excursion or let them go on a school excursion.
These are the battles that normal families have that that lot over there have not got a clue about. Most of them have lived in comfort and many of them have lived in luxury all of their lives. They do not know what it is like to front up at the Woollies check-out and wonder whether you have enough money on your MasterCard to pay the bill. They do not understand that and yet they would cut welfare for ordinary Australians and they would cut penalty rates for the poorest Australians. They do not have a caring bone in their body.
At the same time they say they will give $50 billion in tax cuts to big business. So it is penalty rate cuts for the poorest in the country and $50 billion in tax cuts for business in this country, including the four big banks, which are going to get about $8 billion in tax cuts. What is fair and reasonable about that? Absolutely nothing. Labor have said in our submission that this decision should be set aside. If you compare our submission that looks after ordinary families and working people with the submission that this rabble of a government have put in, you will see that they are chalk and cheese. We stand up for workers; they put them down. (Time expired)
One of the great Australian attributes is to accept the umpire's decision whether you like it or not. Senator Cameron quoted the Prime Minister on the Neil Mitchell program. Allow me to remind him of what his leader said on the Neil Mitchell program on 21 April 2016. He was asked: 'Would you accept the Fair Work Commission decision in relation to penalty rates if it were to reduce them?' In response Mr Shorten said yes, not once or twice but three separate times. So before the election he supported the right of the independent umpire to make the determination and then after the election he seeks to repudiate that promise to the Australian people.
Let us be clear. Why did the Fair Work Commission make this decision? This is a bench of five individuals, all of whom were appointed by the previous Labor government, headed up by a former assistant secretary of the ACTU. You could not have gotten a more favourable bench to the trade union movement. So why did they come to this decision? They were mugged by the reality that these penalty rates were hurting the really underprivileged within our community—the unemployed and the underemployed. They were also restricting benefits to the Australian consumer and the small business sector.
Allow me to briefly explain. You see what occurred was the trade union movement, big unions, with big government traded away penalty rates on Sundays and public holidays. That is why big business does not mind the current award system where, for example, a small independent hamburger place run by mum and dad has to pay on a Sunday about $8 an hour more than the multinational McDonald's up the road. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the justice in paying workers less courtesy of a union agreement to the benefit of a multinational and help put the independent out of business?
We do support the decision of the independent umpire set up under Mr Shorten and Ms Gillard's own legislation. That legislation was specifically amended by Mr Shorten to consider penalty rates. That review was undertaken by the Labor Party appointed officials, including a former assistant secretary of the ACTU, and came to a determination which will assist the unemployed and the underemployed to get onto the ladder of employment.
Will they be relatively low wages? Yes, they will be, but that is as was determined by the umpire. Right, wrong or indifferent, when you live in a society based on the rule of law, you have to accept the umpire's decision. In those circumstances I ask myself: is it better that somebody be on a low wage or on welfare? The evidence is overwhelming. The mental health, physical health, self-esteem and social interaction not only of the individual but of their whole household is enhanced if they are in gainful employment. So there is the individual benefit, the social benefit and the economic benefit, which makes this decision of overwhelming good for the Australian people. That is something that needs to be embraced.
In all of Senator Cameron's offerings in this place you never hear him talk about the plight of those who never get the opportunity of employment or those who are desperately underemployed. This decision seeks to assist those people in that category. They are never spoken about by those on the opposition benches. We on this side say in all these debates that we as a Liberal Party were formed for the forgotten people in these various debates. In this debate the forgotten people are the unemployed, the underemployed, the consumers of Australia, and small business. I invite the Australian Labor Party to put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission to deal with paragraph 3.5 of the Fair Work Commission's decision. I am on the record supporting grandfathering. (Time expired)
Yet again we are in this chamber having untruths spoken from those on the other side. Every day that we come into this chamber I am gobsmacked by the arrogance and how out of touch this government really is. When it comes to the lowest paid workers in this country, they have no empathy at all. It is as if they do not exist. I am not sure that they have ever met anyone who actually works in retail, other than being served by them. I do not think they understand the struggle that is facing so many of our fellow Australians, particularly those on low wages that rely on penalty rates.
The untruth that is spoken, yet again, in this chamber is that all of a sudden cutting penalty rates is going to create jobs. What a lot of nonsense! I do not believe that if you are to go out to your local cafe on a Sunday afternoon, after these penalty rates come into effect, your coffee or your lunch is going to cost any less. I do not believe that jobs will be created.
In my home state of Tasmania so many people rely on penalty rates. Under this government, who promised jobs and growth, there were going to be all these new jobs. There have not been new jobs. What we have is a vast amount of Australians, and particularly Tasmanians, who are underemployed.
The Attorney-General, the leader of the government in this place, who represents the Prime Minister, comes in here and tries to back away at 100 miles an hour, saying that the Prime Minister did not say he supported the cuts to penalty rates when, quite frankly, he did.
We should be talking about the facts of the situation. When unions go out and negotiate an EBA, they do that in good faith that they are going to improve the take-home pay and conditions of those workers that they represent. It is not like the minister, Senator Michaelia Cash, who comes into this place and cherry-picks what happens on a Sunday. The reality is that we know there are going to be too many Australians—700,000 Australians—who are absolutely going to be worse off.
When the government finally did put in a submission, last Friday, to the Fair Work Commission, they did nothing to mitigate the circumstances for those low-paid workers that are going to be affected by this cut.
Then we had the Attorney-General today trying to suggest that hairdressers and beauticians will not be caught up in this penalty rate cut. Once again, this is misleading and false. Next you will be trying to tell me that those people who work in the aged-care sector—where we are scrambling to try and get enough people to come and work in that sector as it is, because of the challenges in and the lack of remuneration for the very important work that they do for some of the most vulnerable people in this country—will not be affected. You may come in here and say that, but I can tell you that when you actually go out and meet people—I am sure I speak to more everyday Australians than you do, Senator Brandis—they do not believe you.
I am glad that we are yet again debating penalty rates and that you have yet again failed to address or answer the questions that we have asked of you in this place today, because one thing Australians understand is that this Prime Minister promised so much and has delivered nothing. He has been a complete disappointment. He is a dud. He is a fizzer.
We have heard from Senator Abetz, from my home state of Tasmania, in this debate. I cannot wait for him to tell the 40,000 Tasmanians that are going to lose on average $77 a week out of their pay packet. He has no idea what it means not to have enough money in your purse at the end of the week to pay for your kid's school excursion. He does not know what it is like not to have enough money in your pay packet to buy that last carton of milk before your next pay. The people on that side of the chamber are so out of touch. They are so arrogant. They will not even listen to the community.
I see Senator Bushby there, and I can imagine we will hear just more tripe coming out of the government side in this debate. The reality is if you have not walked in the shoes of those people who struggle, if you have not had to live on benefits from this government and if you have not had to go out and work on Saturday and Sunday while you are missing out on family time then you have no understanding of the real value of these penalty rates to everyday Australians— (Time expired)
When Senator Polley stood up, I was pleased to hear that she was going to focus on the facts. In this postmodern era I suspect that the facts and the truth are pretty unpopular, but I continue to be a fan of the truth and of facts, and I was pleased to hear that Senator Polley also appeared to be. However, then she went on to spend the next five minutes just repeating the Labor Party spin and scare—trying to represent things as happening when they are not happening, and talking about threats to other industries when it has been made clear by the Fair Work Commission that those threats do not exist.
Then, as proof that she is right, proof that she is talking about the facts, she says that people do not believe us. The fact that people do not believe us does not prove anything other than the fact that you are good at spin, not what the facts are.
Let us have a look at some facts. Let us see what the facts are around this decision. The changes will affect around three to four per cent of Australia's total workforce. There are about 1.1 million workers in retail, accommodation and food services who are not on an enterprise agreement. It is estimated by the FWC that between 25 to 40 per cent of them work on Sundays, and not all of those would work every Sunday. So what we are talking about here is maybe 250,000 to 400,00 people who might be impacted.
Under the decision, Sunday penalty rates are being reduced in four industries only, and those industries are retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmacy—four out of 122 awards. Public holiday rates are proposed to be reduced from 250 per cent to 225 per cent for permanent workers and from 275 per cent to 250 per cent for casual workers in five industries: retail, hospitality, fast food, pharmacy and restaurants—that is a subcategory.
This decision reflects modern shopping trends, where many more customers want to shop and more people want to work on Sundays, especially young Australians. Those are facts. They are trends that are apparent and are happening. Workers in industries covered by enterprise agreements, such as those working in the major supermarket and fast food chains are not directly affected. I will get to that a little bit more if I have time. No other industries are affected. The commission specifically said in its decision that it sets no precedent for other workers who work on weekends, such as nurses or emergency workers. Affected workers will still get weekend penalty rates—that is another fact that has been misrepresented—but Sunday rates will now be closer to Saturday rates, which remain unchanged. I suspect there are people out there who, as a result of the spin and the scare campaign that has been run by the Labor Party and the unions, think they are going to lose all their weekend penalty rates. That is simply not true. For example, instead of getting double time on Sundays, casuals on the retail award will now get time and three-quarters, while permanent staff will get time and a half.
As I mentioned, this applies only to small businesses, not businesses that are dealt with under an EBA. The fact is that most large businesses have done a deal with the unions and have put in place a bargaining agreement under which penalty rates have on the whole already been reduced. Thousands of small businesses have been competing on an uneven playing field against those big businesses that have negotiated a highly advantageous bargaining agreement with unions. That means they already avoid paying high penalty rates on Sundays. Once again, let us focus on the facts, not on spin. For example, for permanent full-time and part-time staff on Sundays, a bed and breakfast must pay a worker $10 more an hour than a five-star hotel would pay an equivalent worker; a family chicken shop down the street, a family owned small business, must pay $8 more an hour to employees than its competitors KFC; a family owned takeaway must pay $8 more an hour than McDonald's; a family owned green grocer must pay $5 more an hour than the local Woolworths; a family pizza takeaway must pay $8 more an hour than Pizza Hut; a boutique clothes shop must pay $7 more an hour than David Jones; a family owned bookshop must pay $8 more an hour than Target; a family owned newsagent must pay $7 more an hour than Officeworks; a family owned bottle shop must pay $7 more an hour than Dan Murphy's; and a family owned hardware store, there are not too many of them left these days, and this is probably part of the reason why, must pay $5 more an hour than an equivalent worker in Bunnings. The Fair Work Commission decision will help small businesses open their doors and compete on a level playing field with these large businesses and create more jobs. (Time expired)
I cannot believe what I have just heard from that guy over there. He spoke for five minutes, and he could not even speak about one of the biggest topics to hit the Australian community this year without reading his speech. My goodness me, the Libs must be so proud of your effort.
I want to correct some of the nonsense mentioned by Senator Bushby. I am going to defend the unions, because in my previous life, I, as you probably did too, Madam Deputy President, spent many, many hours, days, nights, and weekends negotiating enterprise bargaining agreements with workers. The government comes out with this nonsense, asking why someone in a small family owned chicken shop is not paying the same as a bigger business. I will tell you why, Senator Bushby. I will make it very easy for you. Enterprise bargaining has been taking place since 1996. The first EBA I ever did was after I came off the road as a long-distance truckie in 1991. We traded off a number of clauses within the award, all ticked off through the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, because we wanted to give employees the opportunity for a pay rise but also give some flexibility in the workplace for the employers. Remember those days, Madam Deputy President? Senator Bushby, you talk about the family hardware store having to pay $7 more an hour on weekends than Bunnings. Did it ever occur to you that the hourly rate of pay in those big stores for the normal Monday to Friday, for the 7.6-hour spread of hours, is a significantly higher rate? Did it ever occur to you that that significantly higher rate goes onto overtime during the week, it goes to superannuation, it is calculated in annual leave, it is calculated on 10 public holidays a year? Did that ever enter your brain, Senator Bushby, through you, Madam Deputy President?
People on this side have done the hard yards. We have consulted with workers. Whether you on that side like it or not, there are a number of employees, not just the lowest paid but mums who may work on the weekend, while dad is at home looking after the kids, who enjoy that higher hourly rate of pay when they are serving food and drink to you and me. I must say this so that the people in the public gallery can understand: the lowest paid senator in this place is on $195,000 a year, yet there are 30 of them on the other side who cannot wait to stand proudly to drop the rate of pay on a Sunday for some hospitality workers, some pharmacy workers, some fast food workers, some restaurant workers and some bar workers. You are proud of that, Senator Bushby? What really annoys me is that you sit there and you boast about it. To listen, through you, madam Deputy President, to some of the nonsense that comes from over there: 'How dare these workers want to be paid at a higher rate of pay on a Sunday?' It is because that is what they have got.
Senator Abetz said that Labor wants to drive people out of business. What about those businesses that now open on Sundays and pay their workers the current rate of pay? This is what your mates are going to do, Senator Bushby. You may have a restaurant or you may have a cafe or you may have a bar that opens on a Sunday, does its trade and is happy to pay the rates of pay to its workers, the majority of whom may be students. Through your stupidity you are going to give businesses that have not operated on Sundays the opportunity to open their doors on a Sunday, yes, while offering a significantly lower rate of pay than the business who was already doing it. What will happen next is that that restaurateur or that bar owner is going to have to go to their workers and say, 'You know, I was paying double time and I was happy to do it, but now I have these other seven, eight, nine or 10 shops opening in a shopping centre or somewhere around here I can no longer afford it.' He or she is going to say to their workers, 'We've got two options. We're losing business because they are on the Liberals' new rates of pay for Sundays, so we are going to have to either drop your rate of pay,'—and what employer wants to do that? What decent employer wants to go to their loyal employees, who have given up their Sundays to work—and the employer has been happy to pay that rate—and face them and say, 'I've got three options. I drop your rate, I do not open on Sunday or I employ someone else who does.' You know how it works, Madam Deputy President, the majority of these bar workers and restaurant and cafe workers on Sundays are casuals. A lot of them are kids. A lot of them are students working through university. You must feel so proud of your contribution, Senator Bushby. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to air strikes in Iraq.
There is no doubt that senators in this place, and those who may be listening from outside, would be aware that over the weekend the United States government took responsibility for airstrikes in west Mosul—in a very densely populated quarter of that old city, in which more than 200 people appear to have died. Estimates of the death toll varied between less than 100 to more than 200, but there is no doubt that this is the deadliest civilian casualty event by far since the United States government intervened again in that conflict in mid-2014. It would be among the highest death tolls in an American air mission since the US invaded Iraq illegally in 2003, with Australian assistance.
I want to be very clear about what happened. Senator Payne took a question from Senator Fawcett, who has had a long interest in these issues, and she replied that she could rule out, on the spot, intervention by Australian fighter aircraft in the atrocity that occurred on 17 March. She was able to say with great clarity that Australian F/A-18 aircraft were not involved. At the point where I jumped up about 40 minutes later to ask whether Senator Payne could similarly rule out Australian intervention by command-and-control aircraft, the Wedgetails or other surveillance assets, she was unable to do so. Suddenly, 'Oh, it's complicated.' 'Oh, it takes time.' 'Oh, we have to work with our partners.' 'Oh, we're not sure.'
I think we need to be very clear about what is going on here. On the night of the attack—or, if not then, then when the US government came out and claimed responsibility on the weekend just past—it should really only have taken a single phone call by the minister to establish that Australian aircraft either were or were not in that airspace on the afternoon of that atrocity. The minister was unable to do that and has given the parliament no timetable. I understand it may be complicated and it may involve the coalition and the United States government or others, but this parliament has a right to know whether Australian aircraft were involved in this extraordinary attack in Mosul. There is no question that the tempo of coalition aircraft strikes in Iraq and Syria has increased in the last two months, since President Trump took office.
The journalist-led transparency project Airwars, which monitors civilian casualties from airstrikes—it is just Airwars.org—reported that in March alone there were 1,058 reported civilian casualties. That is more than double the number of civilian casualties that were reported last December. It suggests that something has significantly changed in the US government's rules of engagement.
An Iraqi special forces officer spoke to The New York Times on condition of anonymity, and he said that there had been a noticeable relaxing of the coalition's rules of engagement since President Trump took office. Although US military officials said that there was no change in the rules of engagement governing strikes, they say that US military commanders are now operating under new authorities which delegate much more control for battlefield decisions to ground commanders. This is President Trump too busy playing golf to take his role as Commander in Chief seriously. Now, more than ever, with Donald Trump—an erratic, unstable, lying, demagogue—as the United States government's Commander in Chief, we should be stepping back from the US and not participating any further in this aerial bombardment spree in Iraq and Syria.
I feel very, very strongly that this parliament deserves an answer. If Senator Fawcett got an answer to his very simple question, why were the crossbench and the Australian Greens not able to be provided with the very simple information as to whether Australian command-and-control aircraft were in the sky at the time of the attacks. Right after I finish up my contribution here, I will be tabling a notice of motion for the next day of sitting to provide that information to the parliament. It can be in any form that the minister describes. It can be written or she can come in here and give us a statement. Was Australia involved in that attack or not? If Senator Fawcett can get an answer, there is no reason at all why any other senator in this place should not get an answer as well.
Question agreed to.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 23 March 2017, of the Honourable Ian Louis Robinson, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the divisions of Cowper, New South Wales, from 1963 to 1984, and Page, New South Wales, from 1984 to 1990.
I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 23 March 2017, of the Honourable Ian Louis Robinson, former Minister and Member for Cowper and Page, places on record its appreciation of his long and highly distinguished service to the nation and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Ian Robertson was born on 27 March 1925—92 years ago today in Coraki in New South Wales. He spent all his life in northern New South Wales. Before entering parliament he worked as a dairy farmer, as a journalist and as a company director. His political career spanned an impressive 37 years. He was first elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly as the member for Cowper in 1953 at the age of only 28. He held that seat for 10 years. His initial political association on the north coast of New South Wales was with Sir Earle Page, the then member for Cowper, who was an early mentor of Ian Robertson.
Sir Earle Page lost the seat of Cowper to the Labor Party in the 1961 election—the only time the Labor Party has ever taken that prized Country Party, now National Party, seat. In 1963, Ian Robinson was endorsed as the Country Party candidate for Cowper, which he won at the 1963 federal election having resigned from the New South Wales parliament after 10 years of service. He was elected as the member for Cowper at the 1963 election, and successfully contested the seat at every election until 1984, when he changed to the seat of Page. There is a certain appropriateness in the fact that Ian Robinson, having been a protege of Sir Earle Page, first represented in the House of Representatives Sir Earle Page's seat of Cowper and then represented the seat named for Sir Earle Page. He continued as the member for Page until his defeat in 1990 in the Labor swing of that year.
A profile of Ian Robinson in the House of Representatives magazine of 18 September 1984 describes him thus, 'Ian Robinson is a strong speaker, particularly off-the-cuff, and says he has always taken the view that political statements should be based on the strongest facts.' If only that were always the case. On one occasion when he was elected, he was unopposed; on another occasion, so strong was his support that he was not opposed by an official Labor Party candidate.
During his 27 years of service in the House of Representatives, Ian Robinson served as Assistant Minister to the Postmaster-General, Sir Alan Hulme. In fact, his appointment to that position on 20 August 1971—after the first reshuffle of the McMahon government following the resignation of then Mr John Gorton as Minister for Defence—means that he was one of the very last members appointed to the frontbench of the coalition government that had served Australia for 23 years, between 1949 and 1972. Of course he went out of office with the election of the Whitlam government in 1972. During the period of Malcolm Fraser's leadership of the opposition, he served as the shadow spokesman on decentralised development, but, with the election of the Fraser government in December 1975, he was not included on the frontbench. He did, however, serve as deputy chair of committees from 1976 to 1983.
Upon his death, the current member for Page, Mr Kevin Hogan, had this to say in valediction of the late Ian Robinson:
Ian will be greatly missed …
[He] represented the community for 37 years with distinction – a community that he loved …
… … …
In many ways he was a mentor [of mine] and I thank him for his encouragement, advice and support over the years.
Mr Gulaptis, the member for Clarence in state parliament, said:
Ian was true blue all his life. He was born in Coraki in 1925 and after a distinguished political career spanning 37 years … he never stopped fighting for country people right through his failing health.
He will be sorely missed by a community he loved …
I never had the opportunity to meet the late Mr Robinson, but it is very obvious, from the esteem in which he is held by those who knew him and from the political career of such a long span that he enjoyed, that he was one of the great old Country Party warriors for regional Australia. They are not a dying breed—we see them today in people like the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce—but they are a particular type in Australian politics: a type of person who is patriotic, community minded, fiercely loyal to his constituents, fiercely loyal to and beloved of that part of Australia that he represents. So in reflecting on the life and career and achievements of the late Ian Robinson, we reflect upon all that is good in a public life well served and we offer our condolences to his widow, Florence, his family and his many friends.
I rise on behalf of Senator Wong and the opposition to acknowledge the passing of the Hon. Ian Louis Robinson, who passed away last week. I note, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate has just said, that today would have been his 92nd birthday. At the outset I wish to convey the opposition's condolences to relatives and friends of Mr Robinson.
A Country and then a National Party member, Ian Robinson served in the House of Representatives from 1963 until 1990 representing the divisions of Cowper and, following the 1984 redistribution, the seat of Page. In his long parliamentary career, he served as Assistant Minister to the Postmaster-General in the government of Sir William McMahon before his time in executive office was cut short by the election of the Whitlam government in 1972. He also served in the shadow ministry and was an advocate for rural industry and regional services.
Born on the banks of the Richmond River in the mid-1920s, Ian Robinson was strongly connected to northern New South Wales throughout his life. Growing up where his grandfather had first settled in the early 1870s, he later resided in Grafton. Mr Robinson was first active in the Rural Youth Movement and the Agricultural Bureau, before joining the Country Party at a very early age.
Variously a farmer, journalist and company director prior to entering parliament, it seemed public service was to be his true calling. He first entered politics as the member for Casino in the parliament of New South Wales in 1953. He resigned from this position 10 years later to successfully contest the federal election. The division of Cowper had been a Country Party seat for many years until it was snatched by Labor in the closely fought election of 1961. However, unfortunately for Labor, Frank McGuren was to be a oncer. He was defeated soundly in the landslide victory of the Menzies government in 1963, which brought Ian Robinson into the Commonwealth parliament. Mr Robinson would go on to win re-election on a further 10 occasions. Upon entering the House of Representatives, Mr Robinson first addressed himself to the subject of Commonwealth-state relations. Whilst he observed that he believed in the rights of the states as allowed for in the Constitution, he was also quick to identify the need for the states to:
… accept more responsibility in their financial relations with the Commonwealth.
He went on to denounce buck-passing between different levels of government and to lament the negative effect this had on national and regional development and expansion.
Cowper was a largely rural electorate and naturally it was primary industries that dominated, in particular dairying—which was the greatest of these—grazing, timber, banana growing and fishing. Mr Robinson argued for greater attention to be paid to public works and rural infrastructure. Interestingly, despite his claim to 'believe very firmly in state rights', he also saw the need for the Commonwealth to
… exercise more control … or at least have a larger hand in the determination of the overall public works programme.
He saw the need for improvements in communication, roads, education and employment if the potential of primary and secondary industry in rural and regional areas was to be realised. Hand in hand with this went increased investment in steps to increase productivity and he advocated:
… scientific research in co-operation with the States in the field of primary industry.
He also saw a need for:
… special financial assistance to all forms of industry … in regions such as the northern half of New South Wales …
This was to overcome hurdles to economic development in country areas.
In 1971, Ian Robinson became the Assistant Minister to the Postmaster-General. Unfortunately for Mr Robinson, his ministerial career was to be short-lived, as the government of the Liberal-Country Party coalition that had prevailed in Australia since 1949 came to an end in 1972. Finding himself in opposition, Ian Robinson served briefly in the shadow ministry prior to the election of the Fraser government in 1975 as the spokesman on decentralised industry. However, when the coalition returned to government, Mr Robinson did not re-enter the ministry and would instead serve as Deputy Chairman of Committees from 1976 to 1983. When Ian Robinson transferred to the new division of Page following the 1984 redistribution, there was an appropriate symmetry about that change. Sir Earle Page, after whom the seat had been named, had been an important mentor to Mr Robinson and was the last Country Party member to hold the division of Cowper, which Mr Robinson had reclaimed from Labor in 1963.
The 1980s were a turbulent time for the group now known as the National Party, especially as they operated under the shadow of the ill-fated Joh for Canberra push. In 1987, Mr Robinson found himself caught up in speculation about the replacement of then leader Ian Sinclair, touted as a potential leadership candidate sympathetic to a number of disaffected Queensland members. Ultimately, the changing mood of the electorate brought about Mr Robinson's exit from the House of Representatives. Faced with changing demographics in his electorate and criticisms about his own performance, he was defeated at the 1990 election by Labor's Harry Woods. The rise in green issues and green voters was an ill match for Mr Robinson. Having turned up to the opening of the Clarence Environment Centre, Mr Robinson was described by The Sydney Morning Herald's Mike Seccombe as having fitted in 'like a foot in a glove'.
Ian Robinson was a Country Party member through and through. As a representative of the Country Party and National Party in the House of Representatives for 27 years, he displayed the resilience that came from experiences of rural life, where you are not necessarily master of your own destiny. We again extend our deepest sympathies to his family and friends following his passing.
I rise to associate the Nationals with this motion and offer my condolences to the family and friends of the late Hon. Ian Louis Robinson who passed away last Thursday at the age of 91. Mr Robinson was born in 1925 in the northern New South Wales town of Coraki, and it was here that his guiding values for and understanding of regional living were instilled. Mr Robinson's upbringing contributed to his well-rounded and resilient character which, in turn, drove him to commit so much of his life to public life and improving outcomes for regional Australia.
Mr Robinson became involved in public life from quite an early age, becoming a member of the Rural Youth Movement and the Agricultural Bureau, as well as a youth member of the Country Party—the founding party of what is today the National Party, representing regional interests. From there he moved into roles including becoming secretary of his local Country Party branch, a member of the electorate council executive and a representative delegate to the NSW State Conference and Central Council. In these roles, Mr Robinson developed his political skills, a fine representative of regional constituent issues.
Mr Robinson grew up on the property held by his grandfather since the early 1870s and owned a family-run dairy farm. Before entering politics he spent time as both a journalist and a company director. It was experience beyond the oft-trod path of just being a political staffer. There is a lack of experience that I suspect infects those coming to this place since that time. He was a hardworking man who was determined to change things for the better. In regional and rural Australia, the compliment of being a 'hardworking man' is about as high as it gets, and it is really a terrific descriptor of Ian. He was elected to the New South Wales legislative assembly for the seat of Casino in 1953. He held that until 1963, when he contested the federal electorate of Cowper. Mr Robinson successfully regained Cowper and contributed to the Menzies-McEwen government's record majority government of the time.
Joining the House of Representatives chamber with a confident understanding of how parliament worked, Mr Robinson outlined his interests in resolving the uncertainty between state and Commonwealth responsibilities to ensure a workable system where states accept more responsibility for financial relations with the Commonwealth. I have to say that I am not sure that we have got that completely sorted. It is something that we continue to grapple with in this place today. Mr Robinson in his first speech said:
No matter how sound the policy of a government may be, it is nullified unless there is cohesion between various tiers of government in the country.
He was one of those men who actually ensured that, with every policy, there was an implementation plan to ensure that all of the jurisdictions held up to their particular part of the bargain He then went on to praise the government's investment in primary industry and its tremendous contribution to regional electorates. I am confident that Mr Robinson would be also pleased with my party's and, in fact, parliament's continued investments in the interests of regional citizens.
From 1963, Mr Robinson actively represented the interests of constituents in the electorate of Cowper at a federal level and fulfilled the role as Assistant Minister assisting the Postmaster-General, Alan Hulme, from 1971 to 1972. Mr Robinson continued to represent the interests of Cowper residents until 1984 when, as a result of the electoral boundary redistribution, he transferred to the new seat of Page. Mr Robinson said:
The only way to look fairly and squarely at the development needs is to ensure that representation in the Parliament provides a practical means of bringing into the Parliament the views and the requests of the people in the far flung corners of the Commonwealth.
Mr Robinson's values continue in the practices of the National Party today. We are proud to represent regional, rural and remote interests in this place.
An active member of so many parliamentary committees and a strong public speaker, Mr Robinson was an esteemed spokesperson for the National Party, standing and winning 13 elections, one of which was unopposed due to his renowned strength in representing his rural constituents. Serving in federal parliament until 1990, Mr Robinson had a distinguished career spanning 37 years—10 in the New South Wales state parliament and 27 in the Commonwealth parliament—and proudly stands as one of Australia's longest-serving politicians. Regional and rural Australia is much the better for Mr Robinson's contribution to the nation and our National Party.
We thank him for his remarkable service and advocacy for regional Australia. Our sincere condolences go to Mr Robinson's wife Florence, his family and friends. We are the luckier for him having lived. Vale the most honourable Ian Louis Robinson.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
I seek leave to make a short personal statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
On 22 March 2017, last Wednesday, I tabled my second reading introductory speech regarding the Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017. In this speech I stated:
IOOF have been charged with insider trading.
This statement is incorrect. This was an inadvertent mistake based on outdated information. I apologise for misleading the Senate.
What I should have said was that ASIC investigated IOOF in relation to allegations of insider trading. While ASIC took no further action in relation to these allegations, they identified concerns with IOOF's compliance arrangements, breach reporting, management of conflicts of interest, staff trading policy, disclosure, whistle-blower management and protection of cybersecurity. ASIC also found the corporate culture at the time within IOOF contributed to these events occurring.
by leave—I move:
That Senators Macdonald and O'Sullivan be granted leave of absence for today for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
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.
I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 270, standing in my name.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Ludlam, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) there are close to 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, posing a grave threat to all humanity,
(ii) nuclear weapons remain the only weapons of mass destruction not yet expressly prohibited under international law,
(iii) the United Nations (UN) will convene a conference from 27 to 31 March 2017 and 15 June to 7 July 2017 to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination,
(iv) the UN General Assembly has encouraged all UN member states to participate in the conference, and
(v) Australia, as a state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is legally required to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament; and
(b) urges the Australian Government to participate constructively in the conference.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia shares with the international community the goal of a peaceful and secure world free of nuclear weapons. Australia will not participate in the forthcoming UN conference on the negotiated treaty to ban nuclear weapons. This approach is consistent with Australia's clear and longstanding position on the proposed nuclear weapons ban treaty. Australia voted against the United Nations General Assembly resolution No. 71, calling for negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban treaty. Australia was among 83 countries that did not vote in favour of that resolution and among 38 countries to vote against it. The proposed ban treaty would not advance nuclear disarmament. It will be ineffective in eliminating or even reducing nuclear weapons arsenals. It would not enhance security. It would have no effective verification measures to ensure compliance, and it risks undermining the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by creating ambiguity and confusion through parallel obligations and by deepening divisions between nuclear and non-nuclear-weapon states.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, by 29 March 2017, all documents by or held by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC), including risk assessments, advice, emails, minutes or other information relating to consideration of the live export trade or live exporters, including, but not limited to, consideration of the trade's cruelty to animals, reputational risk, and preference for EFIC to support the chilled meat trade in free trade agreement negotiations with any country including Indonesia.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Efic supports Australia's live cattle trade when its environmental and social governance standards are met in Australia and in the host country receiving the export of live cattle. Efic provides export finance for live exporters based upon its assessment of the individual licensed exporter's track record and reputation. The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment has put a very strong focus on increasing opportunities for live exports. We have just had a massive win with Indonesia on the increase in specifications and age for cattle.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Moore and Fierravanti-Wells, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day and the theme in 2017 is "Unite to End TB",
(ii) World Tuberculosis Day is a designated World Health Organization global public health campaign and is an annual event that marks the anniversary of German Nobel Laureate, Dr Robert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes Tuberculosis (TB),
(iii) TB is contagious and airborne, and ranks as the world's second leading cause of death from a single infectious agent,
(iv) in 2016, TB was one of the top ten causes of death worldwide, was responsible for more deaths than HIV and malaria, and there were an estimated 10.4 million new (incident) TB cases worldwide,
(v) Papua-New Guinea has one of the highest rates of TB infection in the Pacific, with an estimated 33,000 total cases, including 2,000 drug-resistant cases in 2015,
(vi) the prevalence of multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB) continues to increase worldwide – there were an estimated 480,000 new cases of MDR-TB and an additional 100,000 people with rifampicin resistant TB (RR-TB) who were also newly eligible for MDR-TB treatment,
(vii) TB is the leading cause of death among HIV positive people – HIV weakens the immune system, and in combination with TB is lethal, each contributing to the other's progress, and
(viii) TB is considered to be a preventable and treatable disease, however, current treatment tools, drugs, diagnostics and vaccines are outdated and ineffective;
(b) recognises:
(i) the impact of the increased support by Australia to combat TB in Papua New Guinea, the need for continued support for prevention and treatment, as well as development of new tools and strategies to combat TB, consistent with the World Health Organization's End TB Strategy,
(ii) current Australian Government funding of health and medical research that is helping to bring new medicines, diagnostic tests and vaccines to market for TB and other neglected diseases, and
(iii) that the ongoing support for research and development of new simple and affordable treatment tools for TB and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) is essential if the goals of the End TB strategy are to be met; and
(c) supports the Australian Government providing continued funding for TB prevention and treatment in Papua-New Guinea, and continued funding for the development of improved diagnostics, medications and vaccines to combat TB, beyond 2017.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Attorney -General be required to provide to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, by no later than noon on 7 April 2017, the following documents relating to the Bell Group liquidation and the Bell Act:
(a) correspondence between the Attorney-General and Ms O'Dwyer in March and April 2016;
(b) a letter from the former Solicitor-General, Mr Justin Gleeson, to the Attorney-General regarding the High Court proceedings in the Bell matter, dated 15 March 2016;
(c) the email chain between the offices of the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General entitled 'Bell - Commissioner of Taxation request for advice from the Solicitor-General - referral to Counsel Assisting the Solicitor-General [SEC=PROTECTED, DLM=Sensitive: Legal]', dated 6 and 7 March 2016; and
(d) the submission from the Attorney-General's Department to the Attorney-General's office on the question of intervention in the Bell matter, dated 28 January 2016.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government opposes the motion. The motion calls for deliberative advice passing between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and between the Attorney-General and his department. To require the production of such documents would completely undermine any government's ability to obtain independent legal advice from a second law officer of the Commonwealth and to prejudice the provision of frank advice from public servants to their ministers. These are longstanding principles essential to the proper functioning of government.
The question is that notice of motion No. 272, as moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia is a country with significant gas resources (conventional natural gas and unconventional gas, including coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas) estimated by Geoscience Australia to be in the order of 279,819 petajoules (equivalent to around 106 years of gas at current production rates, of which the gas reserves account for 47 years),
(ii) Australian energy consumers are entitled to reliable, efficient and long-term gas supply on fair and reasonable terms,
(iii) many Australian energy consumers are paying more for gas per unit than Australian gas is being sold for overseas,
(iv) many countries have mechanisms in place that ensure their domestic energy consumers have reliable, efficient and long-term gas supply on fair and reasonable terms, including:
(A) mandatory percentages of extracted gas being reserved for domestic use,
(B) reserves secured through state-owned gas supply companies, and
(C) a public interest test prior to the grant of export approval, and
(v) Western Australia requires commitments from gas producers for the equivalent of 15 per cent of gas from new offshore developments to be available for domestic use; and
(b) calls on the Government to introduce a public interest test for gas producers which has regard to, amongst other things, reliable, efficient and long-term domestic gas supply to Australian energy consumers on fair and reasonable terms.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
On 15 March 2017, the Prime Minister held a meeting with the leading gas producers in Australia. A series of measures were agreed that will guarantee gas availability during peak demand in the National Electricity Market, make more gas available to the domestic market, increase gas market transparency, increase community confidence in gas development and accelerate the COAG Energy Council's gas market reforms. These reforms will improve pipeline capacity and gas trading markets. Further reforms to improve the gas market will be urgently considered. The government is establishing a task force that will manage implementation of these measures and report to the cabinet energy committee. The task force has received a commitment from the industry to ensure that the domestic market has the gas supply it needs. If necessary, the government will not shirk from using the considerable powers of the Commonwealth under the Constitution to ensure this occurs.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) on 21 March 2017, Harmony Day, the Senate passed a motion that acknowledged "the success of Australia's laws in protecting Australians from discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, key to Australia's success as a multicultural society",
(ii) the comments of the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, that "Here in Australia we have no tolerance for anti-Semitism, no tolerance for racism, no tolerance for anybody who seeks to demean or de-legitimise or dehumanise somebody because of their race or their religion or their culture", and
(iii) the comments of the Coalition to Advance Multiculturalism, a collection of twenty organisations, that "The Turnbull Government's decision to pursue watering down of protections against racial vilification is utterly shameful and at odds with the principles of multicultural Australia";
(b) calls on all members of the Parliament to acknowledge the importance of legislative protections against actions that offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people on the basis of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group; and
(c) reaffirms its commitment to a multicultural Australia in which racism and discrimination have no place.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australians value freedom of speech and they recognise the enormous benefits multiculturalism has delivered to our country. We are a proud multicultural society. There is no place for hate speech in Australia. All Australians have the right to live free from fear of violence or racial discrimination. The government condemns racism and anybody who seeks to demonise someone because of their race. The government's reforms will strengthen Australia's antivilification laws, enhance freedom of speech and improve the complaint-handling processes of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Fair Work Act 2009 passed the Parliament with the support of the Honourable Bill Shorten, MP, and that the Fair Work Bill 2008 was circulated under the name of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Honourable Julia Gillard, MP;
(b) notes that Mr Shorten enhanced some of the penalties for breaching the Fair Work laws when he was Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations;
(c) calls on all employers, employees and other groups to abide by the Fair Work laws; and
(d) condemns any expressions for support of breaching the Fair Work laws by employers, employees or other groups.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator Abetz's motion seeks to condemn all employers, employees and other groups. The trouble with Senator Abetz and his motion is that he sees everything in a binary sense—in black and white. I ask Senator Abetz: would he condemn a worker for walking off a worksite because she believes her life is in danger from unsafe practices? Would Senator Abetz condemn a miner getting himself to the surface from three kilometres underground if he thought a mine was going to collapse? Of course people should not break laws; if laws are broken, there must be consequences. But to condemn everyone in every situation is too simplistic. Labor does not share Senator Abetz's black-and-white view of the world of work, especially when workplace fatalities continue to occur all too regularly. One death is one too many, and if that death is avoided by somebody walking off the job then I hope Senator Abetz would agree that that was the right call.
I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion seeks to support the fair work laws; invite people to note how the fair work laws came into being; call on all employers, employees and other groups to abide by the fair work laws; and to condemn any expression of support for breaching the fair work laws. If what the senator from the Labor Party asserts is correct, she is, in fact, condemning Labor's laws. As she would well know, the law does allow people to walk off the job in circumstances where a life is in danger, and to suggest otherwise is completely wrong and false, and somebody from the Australian Labor Party should know a lot better than that.
This is another motion inviting the Senate to support the rule of law—in this case, specifically, Labor's own laws in the fair work laws. It will be interesting to see if they support their own laws.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) cannot turn, cannot climb, cannot run and cannot fight according to multiple reports from defence experts, and
(ii) an article in The Australian on 22 March 2017, which added to the litany of things the JSF cannot do, by confirming that it would not carry cluster munitions and therefore "would struggle to hit a moderately slow moving target such as a car";
(b) welcomes:
(i) the decision not to equip the JSF with an inhumane and internationally-banned weapon, and
(ii) the fact that the JSF is therefore less capable of killing people;
(c) notes that, in spite of this welcome news, the JSF remains a $17 billion waste of taxpayer money; and
(d) urges the Government not to proceed with such a profligate and unnecessary waste.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The F-35 is an in-production, fifth generation combat aircraft and is capable of highly sophisticated manoeuvres and combat activity. There have been more than 200 F-35 aircraft delivered, with these aircraft now operating in the US, Italy, Israel and Japan. The coalition government is making unprecedented investment in this nation's defence, and the F-35 is the most capable and lethal aircraft to deter and defeat future adversaries. The F-35 is the most affordable stealth aircraft to meet the full range of threats Australia is likely to face in the future.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Whilst I and my colleagues support some of the sentiment of this motion, we cannot support the language. It is our view that, whilst remaining in the F-35 program, Australia should, in cooperation with the Canadians, who are running a competition, reopen and compete for the new combat air capability. What we say is required is, firstly, hedging against further program schedule slippage with an interim aircraft type; secondly, negotiating a fixed-price contract with the inclusion of liquidated damages for schedule and technical performance shortfalls; and, thirdly, ensuring we have appropriate IP rights in place before signing any further contracts for aircraft.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludlum be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Siewert, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Machado-Joseph Disease is a particularly cruel neurodegenerative condition, which has its highest prevalence in the world in East Arnhem Land, and
(ii) the Machado-Joseph Disease Foundation was awarded a $10 million grant by the previous Government and it has never received this funding;
(b) acknowledges that the final of three payments of $500,000 to the Machado-Joseph Disease Foundation will be expiring in June; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to make good on the $10 million grant and provide a single payment of $500,000 to assist the Foundation.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave of one minute is granted.
The government does not support this motion. The government does not support the use of royalty payments intended for Aboriginal communities to fund health services that governments should support. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has already written to the MJD Foundation to advise that the government will not be appealing the Federal Court's decision and that the grant will be paid shortly. In addition, the government has been providing $500,000 a year to the MJD Foundation, more than the interest that will be earned from this inappropriate grant.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion no. 276, standing in my name and the names of Senators McKim, Lambie and Hinch for today, by adding Senator Kakoschke-Moore as one of the movers of the motion.
Leave granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senators McKim, Lambie, Hinch and Kakoschke-Moore, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the crucial work done by Community Legal Centres across Australia,
(ii) with concern, that Community Legal Centres:
(A) help over 215,000 people each year, but are forced to turn away more than 160,000 people largely due to a lack of resources, and
(B) face a 30 per cent reduction in Commonwealth funding nationally from 1 July 2017 under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services,
(iii) that if the 30 per cent cut is not reversed in the upcoming Budget, Community Legal Centres will be forced to further reduce front-line legal services to people across Australia in desperate need of legal assistance, including thousands of women and families experiencing domestic violence, and
(iv) the Productivity Commission's 2014 recommendation for an urgent and significant investment of $200 million in the legal assistance sector, including to Community Legal Centres; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) reverse the funding cuts to Community Legal Centres of $34.83 million nationally between 2017-18 and 2019-20, and
(ii) commit to adequate and sustainable longer-term funding contributions to the legal assistance sector.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is committed to access to justice and supports the important work of the community legal assistance sector. In a tight fiscal environment, the government is providing $1.6 billion for legal assistance services including community legal centres. The government is also providing a further $45 million for front-line services for those affected by family violence. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services, services are directed to those who need them most. Funding for community legal centres is not a matter for the Commonwealth alone. Investment from the states and territories is also crucial.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate supports the rule of law and, in particular, that the people and the government should be ruled by the law, and obey it.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 268.
Leave granted.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 268, standing in my name and the names of Senators Moore and Fierravanti-Wells for today, relating to World Tuberculosis Day, also include the name of Senator Dean Smith. That was taken as a formal motion.
That name has now been added by leave.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 today nine proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75 from Senators Cameron, Dastyari, Gallagher, Hanson, Hinch, McAllister, Siewert, Urquhart and Wong. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Turnbull government's spending of $1 billion on Adani's coal line rail that is putting 70,000 tourism jobs along the Great Barrier Reef at risk as well as jeopardising the livelihoods of future generations.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.
I rise today to speak in support of this proposal. Let me begin by discussing what is at stake here. We are blessed to have one of the most incredible natural wonders on earth off the coast of Queensland: the Great Barrier Reef. This incredible jewel, this natural wonder, the only living organism that can be seen from space, is a magical underwater world that has brought so much pleasure to people not just here in Australia but right around the world. Indeed, it is a source of wonder and delight and something that we should all feel very privileged to have right here on our doorstep.
Yet here we are, in an age of catastrophic global warming, at a time when we know the window for action is closing, with a proposal for a jobs-destroying, polluting, climate-killing coalmine in Queensland that we know not only will spell disaster for the jobs that rely on the Great Barrier Reef but, indeed, may mean the end of the Great Barrier Reef as we know it. I say to those people who have not seen what is going on right now in Queensland: go and see it with your own eyes. Last year, Senator Larissa Waters and I did that. We went to visit some of those northern reefs, and what you see there is what were once vibrant ecosystems transformed into underwater deserts. You see the corals, which once showed the greens and other incredible hues, completely wiped of all colour and all life and effectively transformed into an underwater desert of a sickly yellow in some parts and a ghostly white in other parts.
Faced with the prospect of losing this incredible natural wonder, something that we are custodians of and should be handing to future generations, we have a government that, instead of acting with urgency, is proposing to destroy the Great Barrier Reef. Today we see evidence of a massive cyclone descending on the Queensland coast. We are going to see more of them if the Carmichael mine goes ahead—more intense cyclones and more extreme weather. That is the cost of global warming. That is a scientific fact.
Government senators interjecting—
We have members of the coalition disputing what the science is telling us. The consequence of the Carmichael mine going ahead will be more intense cyclones and more extreme weather.
You would think that one thing this government would understand is the notion of jobs. There are 70,000 tourism jobs in Queensland, compared to 1,400 jobs in the mining industry if this project goes ahead. We know what the outcome should be. We are now seeing a second, unparalleled bleaching event further south in Queensland and we know that there is hardly a reef that is not affected between the cities of Townsville and Cairns. If $1 billion of taxpayer money goes towards this mine to build the rail to support digging that coal out of the ground and shipping it overseas—indeed, through the Great Barrier Reef—what this government is doing is scandalous and it will trigger the biggest protest movement of this decade.
We have had a lot of debate about the rule of law, but, if people did not stand up when the Franklin was about to be dammed, we would have lost one of this nation's—indeed, the earth's—most precious wild rivers. It was the brave action of many of those protesters, who stood up in defiance of the law, that helped to save the Franklin. We, together with people from right around the world, will make sure that we again commit to standing against this government and against its proposal to ensure that the Adani mine goes ahead. We say to financiers who are looking at this right now: get ready for the fight of your life because, if you are going to contribute money to this mine, you will be faced with a backlash not just from the Greens but from the entire Australian community.
It is great to speak after Senator Di Natale. Today, Senator Di Natale—we heard it just then and we heard it earlier in question time—continues with this extremist rhetoric about coal and seeking to shut down an entire industry. The nature of that extremist rhetoric was particularly well exposed in question time today, when Senator Di Natale compared coalminers to drug dealers. That is what he did: he compared coalminers to drug dealers. Coalminers, of course, provide tens of thousands of jobs in this country. They provide billions of dollars in exports. They provide billions of dollars in taxation revenue and energy security for Australians, and, as we export that coal, particularly to countries like India and others—
Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order about adverse reflection on another senator. Senator Seselja has just explicitly stated that Senator Di Natale compared coalminers to drug dealers. That is categorically not the case. What he did was make a comment on the lameness of the argument—
Senator McKim, that is not a point of order; that is editorialising. I was listening very carefully to Senator Seselja's comments and I also heard the comments in question time. You are making a debating point, not a point of order.
They are very sensitive on this point. It was interesting that Senator Di Natale raised that because, when it comes to choosing between coalminers and drug dealers, the Greens choose drug dealers. They want to ban coal and they want to legalise drugs. We have seen it recently in the policies that the Greens have put forward. Senator Di Natale recently put forward a policy that would see the legalisation of drugs in this country, but one thing they want to do is ban coal. So, when it comes to choosing between those two realities, they choose the drug dealers over the coalminers.
We reject the premise of this matter of public importance. The suggestion that you cannot have a coal industry, as we have seen for decades and decades in Queensland, and a growing tourism sector is absolutely false. Let's go to the figures. Let's see how the tourism sector has done under the coalition government. Let's see how it is done in Queensland under the coalition government. There is nothing like facts to respond to the Greens' rhetoric. Let's respond with some facts. Since 2013, the Whitsundays saw an increase of 36 per cent in international visitors and an astonishing increase of 89 per cent increase in visitor spend—an 89 per cent increase! So we have seen a booming tourism sector co-existing with things like coalmines. That has been the case for many, many years. Tropical North Queensland saw an increase of 31 per cent in international visitors and an increase in visitor spend over three years of 34 per cent. These are very encouraging figures. I am sure the Greens do not want to hear them.
Madam Acting Deputy President, a point of order.
I can feel a point of order coming on. I am not sure what it is going to be about.
Senator Seselja, if you could take your seat. Senator McKim, a point of order.
Madam Acting Deputy President, it is a point of order on the matter I raised with you earlier. I have reviewed standing order 193 and I do believe that it is a cut and dried case of a breach of that standing order that Senator Seselja has just engaged in. I would ask you to ask the President to review the tape of both Senator Di Natale's comments in question time this afternoon and Senator Seselja's quite blatantly inaccurate assertions. If there has been a breach, I ask you to request the President to take the appropriate action.
Senator McKim, I will refer this as requested to the President. As I said, I listened very carefully to what Senator Seselja said and, in my opinion, it accurately reflected what was said in question time. But if it does not—
In my opinion it doesn't.
Senator McKim, you have asked me the question. As I have said already, I will refer it to the President, as you have sought, and the President can take the matter up further.
If Senator McKim wants to adhere to the standing orders, he probably should not be yelling at you as you are giving your ruling. I think a little more respect for the person in the chair would be—
How about some truth from you, mate.
I absolutely stand by what I said. I stand by it 100 per cent. You will have a chance, no doubt, to come and speak, and you can tell me which part I got wrong. Instead of appealing to the umpire, appealing to procedures, which you have gotten wrong, maybe you could come back and tell me which part of what I said was wrong.
Senator Seselja, I just remind you—
Senator McKim interjecting—
Senator McKim, you are not helping matters. Senator Seselja, I would ask you to refer all issues through the chair. Thank you.
Through you, Chair, if Senator McKim had a case, he could make it as a debating point, but why would the Greens start focusing on facts now? Why would they change the habit of a lifetime and start focusing on facts? I have given some facts about the tourism spend, so that debunks a lot of the claim that somehow these industries cannot co-exist; they absolutely can. They have done so for decades. We have seen a massive increase in the tourism spend at a time when we have seen a massive increase in coal exports from Queensland. Let's go through some of those facts. They have co-existed, side by side, over the last 60 years. International tourism to the reef grew from 214,000 in 1999 to 248,000 in 2016, in the same period that coal exports from Queensland grew from around 94 million tonnes to 221 million tonnes. So we have seen the growth of both industries. Isn't that a great thing? Isn't that something we should be celebrating rather than, as the Greens would like to do, kill an industry. That is what they want to do.
Talk about coral bleaching.
I will talk about the facts in this matter. Senator Whish-Wilson, through you, Chair, may not like those facts. Perhaps if there is another Greens' contribution to this debate they could address the fact that we have seen growing tourism numbers and we have seen a growing amount of coal at the same time.
I want to go to the Supreme Court ruling, which Minister Canavan mentioned today, because again it debunks the Greens' central claim. Their central claim is that, if the Adani coalmine goes ahead, there will be heaps more global emissions, therefore, the reef will suffer and, therefore, tourism will die. That has been debunked by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Queensland said:
… the power stations would burn the same amount of coal and produce at least the same amount of scope 3 emissions whether or not the mine proceeded; if the mine proceeded it would not increase the amount of global greenhouse gases or any environmental impact resulting from those gases …
Again, you have the Supreme Court of Queensland—which is not known as a right-wing organisation—a judicial body, ruling on the facts, looking at the evidence and saying, 'No, actually, the Indian government, on behalf of the Indian people, are going to source coal, and they are going to source coal for their growing population so that hundreds of millions of Indian residents, Indian citizens, can get out of poverty, and so that hundreds of millions of Indians can for the first time perhaps have electricity where they live.' They are going to source that coal. They could source Australia's high quality coal from Queensland or they could source it from other parts of the world. What the Supreme Court found was that, therefore, this will not add to global emissions. But let's for a moment focus on that aspect. This goes to the complete inability of the Greens to have any sort of concern for poverty-stricken people in other parts of the world.
The Indian government is seeking to drag large chunks of their population out of poverty. It is very easy if you are a comfortable green somewhere saying: 'I want to abolish coal. I want to kill the coal industry. I want to stop these exports, even though the Supreme Court has said it is not going to add to global emissions.' You have got such an ideological fixation as a green that you are prepared to ignore what the Indian government is trying to do in dragging hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. Why don't we, for just one moment, put ourselves in the shoes of those people who do not have access to some of the basics of life that we take for granted. If the Indian government could do it just through solar and if they could do it just through wind then they may well do that. They do have solar projects and they do have wind projects. But they have made the very rational judgement that the only way in the short term that they are going to drag these people out of poverty is by having base load coal and other sources of base load energy. What the Greens do not seem to care about is how transformative that would be for those individuals, for those families and for those communities. Just for a moment, take off the blinkers and put yourself in those circumstances. The Indian government is right to try and deliver that for their people.
We have an abundance of coal. It is, in many cases, much cleaner than coal from other sources. The Supreme Court said it will not add to the overall greenhouse gas emissions. Yet we will be dragging people out of poverty; creating thousands of jobs here in Australia; and continuing to maintain a critical industry for this nation, which pays billions of dollars every year in taxes, so that we can spend money on things like roads, hospitals and schools and the defence of our nation. But the Greens would throw all of that aside, with no regard for the jobs here in Australia, with no regard for the flow-on impact for our economy, completely disregarding that it will have no environmental impact and absolutely oblivious to the needs of people who could only dream of having the kinds of living standards that we enjoy here in Australia.
I think we should see this for what it is. We should see the callousness of the argument that is made consistently by the Greens when they deal with the Adani issue. The Greens' case does not stack up environmentally, it does not stack-up economically and does not stack up when it comes to having some regard for some of the poorest people in the world (Time expired)
One point of clarification in relation to Senator McKim's point of order that he raised with me. I wanted to confirm with the Senate that the President will only come back to the Senate if there is a further matter to raise in relation to the issue that Senator McKim raised.
This issue of protecting the Great Barrier Reef but also ensuring that there are job opportunities for regional Queensland is something that the Labor Party in Queensland has been at the forefront of. Labor has a proud record at both the state and federal level—and a better record than anyone over the last 30 years—of taking action to protect the Reef. But we also understand the importance of economic opportunity for regional Queenslanders, and it is the prism through which the Adani project is being looked at.
I understand Senator Di Natale said that he visited the Reef last year. I visited it with my family as well. It was the first opportunity that I have had to take my kids on that trip. I have also spent plenty of time in regional Queensland talking to people who are suffering unemployment at the moment. I dare say that, whilst Senator Di Natale visited the reef, I doubt he took time to go and talk to the people of Townsville who are suffering under high unemployment.
When you look at the unemployment rate in Townsville, it is at 11.6 per cent, and youth unemployment is at 16.8 per cent. This is of significant concern to me as a Queensland Labor senator, and something that I know is felt particularly in those local communities. The effects of high unemployment, with youth crime and associated social issues, are of concern. When you add falling house prices to that—I am just trying to paint a picture of the economic circumstances in North and Central Queensland—you get a sense of the doom and gloom that people in places like Mackay and Townsville are feeling as a result.
To exemplify the importance of this project, you only have to look at the trip to India, a number of weeks ago, by a group of mayors from that area. I know that Matt Burnett, mayor of Gladstone; Jenny Hill, mayor of Townsville; and Margaret Strelow, mayor of Rockhampton went on that trip. I had the opportunity to talk to the mayor of Rockhampton last week about how the trip went, and she was very excited about how successful it was and the opportunity that that group of mayors had had to put their case to the Adani Group about the importance of that project to regional Queensland.
I know that the state Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was also on that trip. I had the opportunity to speak to her last week about how that trip went. Annastacia is also excited about the opportunity that the Adani project presents for regional Queensland. Speaking from experience, from a Queensland point of view it is very rare to get a group of mayors from a particular region agreeing on anything! It shows how strongly they agree with this project and its economic importance to Central and North Queensland that they were prepared to make that trip and make the case for how important it is for their region that it go ahead.
It is important to note that the jobs and economic opportunities from these sorts of projects are vital to those communities. The state Labor government understands this. They have been very consistent supporters of the project from opposition and now whilst in government. But the consistent message from them has been that this project must operate on its own commercial merits. I want to emphasise the key point there—its own commercial merits. I have seen similar language used by other politicians as well.
The reality is that, when it comes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, all those opposite see is a boondoggle that they can use to try and play politics and claim credit over local issues. But the sad reality of this is that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund has not contributed one red cent to north Queensland, it has not created one job and it is a distinct failure by the ministers, and those that have been responsible for it, that they have not delivered anything of note to regional Queensland.
They have form in this regard, because what we saw before the 2015 state election was Campbell Newman and Jeff Seeney trying to play politics with public funds by saying that they would privatise the electricity network, ports and other associated government businesses in Queensland, and they would put some of that money into the rail line for Adani. We saw that before the 2015 state election. As we all know, they absolutely failed, and that government got wiped out. What we are seeing is a re-run of that, where Senator Canavan is trying to use that same rhetoric, saying that he is going to use the Northern Australian Infrastructure Fund to fund the rail line. But, as I said, with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, there is plenty of talk, but there is absolutely a lack of action when it comes to using that money.
Let us have a look at the evidence, what we have actually seen, when it comes to what politicians have been saying about the rail line. It is important to note that, post the 2015 state election, Adani issued a statement declaring that the Queensland election result would not influence the company's final decision-making and that the plan to build Adani's biggest coalmine would proceed regardless. When questioned about it, Minister Frydenberg, who was previously the minister responsible, said:
… it "wouldn't be a priority project" for funding under the Northern Australia Infrastructure fund. He also said that Adani was "a commercial operation and it needs to stand on its own two feet".
That was the line from minister Freudenberg before the federal election last year. What has changed? Clearly, the election result and the government's knowing that it is under significant pressure in regional Queensland. It sees this as a lifeline for it. The evidence from the previous state election is that the people of central and North Queensland, whilst I am confident they support this project, are not going to be hoodwinked by the government into believing that only the government that can get this project up. The company has said that it is not reliant on government funding and ministers have previously said that also, so it is a furphy for the government to look at that.
There is another, more recent quote from Adani in regard to the Northern Australia Infrastructure fund loan. The spokesperson said:
It's not critical. We have obviously applied for it because it's available … This is something that governments of all political persuasions have done in the past and I assume will do in the future. It doesn't necessarily mean it's make or break for the project.
It is important to note this when you look at the mandatory criteria written into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund Investment Mandate Direction 2016, which state:
The Project Proponent must demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction that financial assistance is necessary to enable the Project to proceed, or to proceed much earlier than it would otherwise.
So even when you look at NAIF's own guidelines you see there is a real failure in how this has proceeded from an Adani point of view, when it is on the record as saying it is not reliant on this government money. I emphasise that not a single dollar has been released from the $5 billion Northern Australia infrastructure fund, despite the development of Northern Australia being a key election promise in 2013. Those opposite talk a big game, but they fail to get any money out the door. It is no wonder that people in central and North Queensland are losing confidence in this government. The Adani project is the only project that has progressed under consideration at the moment. There are apparently five others, but Senator Canavan is claiming commercial in confidence. It may be that all the government sees Adani as being is a way to make one of its flagship funding programs slightly more complete other than the utter failure we have seen so far.
To rub salt into the wounds, two weeks ago the government set up a regional ministerial task force without one Queenslander on it. So at one level the government is saying that it understands regional Queensland, that it understands the importance of this project, but when push comes to shove and we actually see the actions of the government we see none of that follows up, and it leaves a sad tale.
The other aspect from a regional Queensland point of view is the jobs package that the government promised before the last federal election. Here we are, almost 12 months later, and not one cent has been spent in regional Queensland. I mentioned the high unemployment in places like Townsville. We see similar unemployment figures for the Gladstone area. The government has a really sorry tale of delivering on important local projects that it promised in the lead up to the election. We have seen nothing since.
To come back to my main point, Labor stands by its very proud environmental record in Queensland. No-one has done more to protect the reef over the last 30 years, but we also understand the importance of jobs. But it is Adani that has said that this project can stand on its own merits and does not need government support.
At every opportunity the Australian Greens present themselves as more extreme, more anti-human, more antiscience, more anti-environment, more homophobic, more anti-Semitic, more anti-economy and antijobs. This motion proves the point. It is extreme. It is fringe dwelling. With this motion the Greens have taken a bridge too far. By coming into this chamber to tell untruths about our Great Barrier Reef being at risk they are trashing the reputation of our home state. I stand in this chamber to defend the reef. It is not in danger. It is healthy, it is stable and it is thriving. Data shows alkalinity, pH values, as randomly varying, naturally. The reef was bleached in 2008 during record cold temperatures and recovered entirely naturally. The Left perpetuates this misrepresentation of the reef, and these lies damage our economy, as tourist operators up and down the coast tell us that tourists think the reef is dead. The only risk to Queensland jobs is the Left.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say to the Greens: your motions actually damage our international reputation. The rot spoken through the Greens motions actually portrays to the world that the reef is damaged beyond repair or should not be visited. I beg the Greens, on behalf of Queenslanders, to stop trashing my home state's reputation.
Arrogantly, the Greens refuse to debate their views, instead they cast their crazy ideas as gospel. Senator Larissa Waters—a so-called Queensland senator—refuses to reply to any request to debate her party's wacky ideas and theories. Just yesterday, the science entertainer Doctor Karl Kruszelnicki refused to debate me on climate science, after a two-hour discussion. He originally agreed but then pulled out. The green movement know they are cornered. Their tricks have run dry. By refusing public discussions they have forfeited. They have lost the climate change debate.
The CSIRO, which disseminates clearly incorrect and fabricated information to journalists, still fails to correct gross errors it has released to the media, which I brought to their attention. The CSIRO refuses to turn up and be kept informed of any evidence that is contrary to the opinions it has formed about climate change. We need debate on the reef, debate on its health and debate on climate, because this science is not settled. We need not suppress opinions that are contrary to what a group of compromised climate academics have been sprouting. Senator Macdonald said we have never had a debate on climate science in this chamber until our party came along, and he is correct. Through debate real facts can be found.
One person who needs assistance with facts is the Greens MP Adam Bandt. He point blank misrepresented and misled Queenslanders in claiming that cyclone Debbie in North Queensland is the result of coal fired power stations. What a laugh. We have had our first death, unfortunately, from Cyclone Debbie. It was a tragic death, and Mr Bandt skips around parliament claiming—wait for it!—the cyclone has been caused by coal fired power stations. It is bizarre, cruel, heartless and dishonest. Who, Mr Bandt, caused the 1880s cyclones? I call out Mr Bandt for telling untruths in a time of tragedy. We Queenslanders always weather storms. We will weather this cyclone and we will do it without puerile lectures from the Greens about closing power stations.
Again, the Greens are seeking to advance their political agenda by damaging the economy of our home state. It is no secret that primary production, in particular mining, is key to our economy. We need coal, which poses no environmental threat, to keep the lights on, the factories working and people employed. Damaging our economy is keen, control-oriented, left-wing ideology. This is the real rift in the Labor Party—ideology. While at a federal level the Labor Party are cosying up to the Greens and are turning their policies decidedly more anti-coal, the reality is the Labor Party state division of Queensland is on a different hymn sheet.
Premier Palaszczuk is running around claiming she support the Adani mine, but at the same time she is desperate to strike a preference deal with the Greens Party. You cannot hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes, Premier Palaszczuk. Either you follow your manifesto and close down coal or you support coalmines and the jobs created. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi: Premier Palaszczuk, you are failing Queenslanders and your fate awaits you at the next state election.
It is Queenslanders who are being sold out by the deals that the Labor Party is creating with the Greens. If Premier Palaszczuk and Mr Shorten were to show they care one little bit about our state, they would place the Greens last on their how-to-vote cards. This motion is the very reason why the Greens must go last. We will call for a return to reality and truth. (Time expired)
Senator Paterson.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. Does it not say a wonderful thing about this chamber that dissident crossbenchers, such as yourself, can chair a debate like this. I am sure you do it very well.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to hear the contributions of all of the previous speakers, but, just out of an abundance of caution, I have decided it might be helpful to put some facts on the record in a calm and considered manner. The substance of this debate is about an application for a loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to build a railway line. An application has been made and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is considering that application. The government has not made a decision, and nor will the government make a decision in this matter, because it is a decision for the infrastructure facility. So those in this debate who have sought to betray the fact that the government has already approved or is about to approve a concessional loan through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility are not correct. It is a matter for NAIF to consider against the rigorous criteria they have to assess all applications for infrastructure development in Northern Australia.
It is worth just spending a moment to think about what the purpose of NAIF is, why it was established and why it is, I think, a very sensible and measured way to northern development. Australians from across the political spectrum have shared a concern that we have not taken advantage of the unique opportunities in Northern Australia for development. For a range of reasons for many years, many opportunities in Northern Australia have not been captured by Australia, and this government's proposal to, in part, deal with that is to establish an infrastructure facility that can fund worthy projects of economic infrastructure in northern Australia. It is not all that different to the infrastructure that governments fund elsewhere in Australia. The roads that we fund, the bridges that we build and the dams that we build are all funded, in part, by government funding. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is just a special vehicle to help ensure that is happening in northern Australia as it should happen.
It is also worth pointing out that sometimes in this debate it is put forward that the potential construction of this railway line from the Galilee Basin is for the Adani coalmine only. But one of the criteria of loans under the NAIF is to ensure that it has multiple purposes and that it cannot just be for the benefit of one company—the applicant in this case. It has to be able to be shared and used by others. Because it is economic infrastructure supported by the taxpayer, it has to be something that is made available generally to those who wish to utilise it. If this is approved and if this is constructed, it will not just be Adani that will benefit from it; other coalmining operations or similar operations in the Galilee Basin will also benefit from it. The Galilee Basin has huge economic potential, which I will come to in a moment.
These loans from the NAIF are made under commercial-like terms. They have to be paid back. Only 50 per cent of the debt can come from NAIF. The other 50 per cent of it has to come from the private sector. That ensures that private sector rigour is brought into the decision making. It is not just going to be a decision of government. It is not just going to be an interjection suggested before a slush fund—or political in its decision making—because private sector financing must also be made available. In my experience, private sector loan makers—banks and other institutions—do not typically put up money just for political purposes, and they do not put up money if they do not expect to get a decent return on it. In effect, these applications have to jump a double hurdle. They have to demonstrate to NAIF that they are worthy economic infrastructure for northern Australia and they have to demonstrate to a private sector partner that it stacks up on economic grounds that there will be a return on investment.
It is worth noting that this application is supported by the Queensland Labor government very strongly, and that this mine has been approved by the Queensland state government and has passed all the federal approvals too. In fact, I doubt there is a mining project in Australia which has been subject to greater difficulties in receiving its permits, not because of anything about the nature of the project itself, but because of the nature of the political opposition to it. Case after case after case has been run by environmental activists who often have no genuine or legitimate connection to the region or the area, but who construct a connection for legal purposes to try and obstruct this coalmine. They have singled it out for particular activism and attack through the legal system, and are taking advantage of the laws as they are today in an attempt to disrupt it, and they have failed. In every instance they have failed. The only thing that they have succeeded in doing is delaying the construction and start-up of this project through their extraordinary legal strategies to disrupt and delay the project, but they have never been successful in any of their legal challenges, nor does it appear that they are likely to be.
I think the truth of this matter is that the Greens are opposed not just to the Adani coalmine and not just to a Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility loan for a Galilee Basin rail project but to coalmining in general. That is their right. That is their view. They are entitled to strongly argue for that case, but they should be honest. This motion should not be about taxpayer financing for a railway. It should not just be about Adani. It should be about coal altogether. It should be about the fact that they believe that no more coalmines should ever be built, no more coal fired power stations should ever be built and no-one should burn coal ever again in the future to generate power. That is an ideological position that they hold; it is one that I do not think is supported by evidence. It is certainly not one that is formed taking into consideration the many nations in the world that still depend on coal-fired electricity, and who will depend on coal-fired electricity for many years to come according to every projection.
The minister, in commenting on this issue in question time earlier today, pointed out that in this century, in just the 17 years we have had in this century so far, there has been a 60 per cent increase in coal consumption. That is an extraordinary statistic when you consider all of the emphasis placed on renewable energy and the growth of renewable energy and the idea that that would somehow displace coal-fired generation. There is no realistic prospect that it will actually displace coal-fired generation for many years to come, so, in the meantime, the coal-fired power stations that exist today and the many more that are being built in countries like China and Japan and India will need to be supplied with coal.
We have a choice before us as a country. Do we want to supply that coal and be the economic beneficiaries of selling our resources? Do we want to supply that coal, which is a higher quality than much of the coal mined elsewhere in the world and which will be mined under much stricter environmental approvals and regulations than anywhere else in the world? Or do we want to surrender that economic opportunity, surrender the jobs and the export income that comes with it? Do we want to surrender the opportunity to ensure that higher quality, better coal is supplied to these coal-fired power stations? Do we want to ensure that they mine in countries with less stringent environmental standards, lower quality coal—ultimately to the detriment of the planet?
Perhaps when the Greens are running the world government, as they aspire to one day do, they will be able to stop coalmining everywhere and they will be able to stop coal-fired power stations everywhere. But in this day and age, all they do is have a few senators here in this chamber in an attempt to influence Australia's politics. So even if they were successful in stopping it in Australia, the reality is they are not going to stop it elsewhere in the world. It will occur; it will continue. It might as well continue to our benefit and to the environment's benefit with high-quality Australian coal.
I want to finish by making one point: we should bear in mind who the ultimate beneficiaries of the coal mine in Australia and of the exported coal are, other than those who will directly benefit from the jobs and investment in Australia. They are the obvious beneficiaries, but the ultimate beneficiaries are the people in countries like India who will be able to access electricity at low costs as a result of this mine. My former colleagues and friends at the Institute of Public Affairs did a report on this issue a number of years ago. It demonstrated that the coal mined and exported from the Adani coal mine alone could bring cheap, reliable, low-cost energy to 82 million Indians. In condemning this mine today, in condemning the infrastructure necessary to facilitate this mine and its construction, you are also condemning 82 million Indians to continue to burn dung and biomass and other low-quality fuels in their homes. You are condemning them to be, as the World Health Organization has found and identified, poisoned by burning those low-quality fuels in their homes when, alternatively, they could be connected to a reliable grid, a reliable energy source, that is much healthier for them, that is much cheaper for them and that is much more reliable for them. That is the choice we face today. There are still hundreds of millions of Indians today, to take one country as an example, who do not have access to reliable baseload low-cost energy. We can be part of the solution in ensuring that they are. We can be part of improving human health, which the World Health Organization has identified, by removing those poor-quality fuels that many countries still rely upon. I think Australia should make that choice. It is a good choice for Australia to make. We benefit from it; the world benefits from it; the poor of the world in particular benefit from it. I urge the Greens to reconsider their ill-conceived opposition to quality low-cost Australian coal.
Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, I share the words that came from Senator Paterson in congratulating you on your ascension to Acting Deputy President. I note that at one point today we were sitting on the same side of the chamber when we voted, and I believe that did as much damage to my reputation as it did to yours.
I find it unbelievable that I would be the one here making an argument to a former advocate from the IPA about what the role of public funds should and should not be. There is a whole host of issues regarding a proposed Adani mine. There is a whole host of environmental issues, there is a whole host of environmental concerns—legitimate concerns I believe. Some of them may be exaggerated at times, but they are legitimate concerns about the possible impact on the Great Barrier Reef and the possible impact on tourism jobs and they need to be properly addressed. Fundamentally though, the bit that needs further scrutiny at this point in time is the role of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the lack of transparency in how it is going about making its decisions. When you are looking at a fund that has been given $8 million, compared to the $23 million that is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's operating figure, it really makes you wonder how and what processes are being undertaken.
The fact is this is a secretive process, this is a process where there has been a complete lack of disclosure, lack of information; how these decisions are being made are not being made in a transparent way. If we are seriously talking about $1 billion of taxpayer funds being put up as a loan for a project to make it commercially viable, the first question you have to ask yourself is: why isn't it commercially viable to begin with? Why is it the private sector is not underwriting and providing these funds? If that is the case, then it needs that intervention. Ask yourself: should we be intervening in areas and policy areas that we do not necessarily want or need to be encouraging?
There is a lack of transparency in how these decisions are being made. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has repeatedly come before Senate estimates and, in a very open and transparent way, has answered legitimate questions that should be asked when taxpayer funds are being put up in these types of projects. When it comes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, nothing of the kind has taken place. We really run the risk that this just becomes a pork-barrelling exercise for the government to find another way of funding projects, but doing it off budget, off the balance sheet, and doing it in a way that is not realistically feasible to see how this money will ever be repaid. Are we talking about a $1 billion loan or are we talking about a $1 billion investment to a private corporation simply for the purpose of their own project? If that is what we are doing, then let us at least be upfront with the Australian people and let us be upfront in how this decision has been made and how this decision has come about, because I believe that there is a right for people to know.
With the huge concerns over the Adani proposal when it comes to environmental considerations—again, we are not going to have time in this debate or in this chamber now to be able to adequately cover the different debate that is going on around the environmental concerns—surely we can agree that transparency over $1 billion of taxpayer funds is a good place to start. I think the Senate should have and needs to have a much bigger role in getting to the bottom of what potential loan is taking place, especially when you look at the concerning tax arrangements that Adani has used around the world. Frankly, these are things that we should get to the bottom of.
I want to note too that we heard some beautiful words from Senator Malcolm Roberts a little bit earlier. I have to say I was a bit confused, because I thought Senator Roberts had gone on strike. It was exciting to see him say a few words. I just want to say this, because I know the One Nation senators will be listening to this: I completely support their right to take industrial action. I do note, however, that it appears to be a secondary boycott. If the ABCC was being applied to them right now, this would be unprotected action—unprotected action in the industrial sense, not in the other sense—and that the legislation that they themselves have voted on would make the type of action they are taking, the strike that they are on, potentially illegal. We heard from Senator Abetz earlier today: apparently there are some laws that some people—be it Mahatma Gandhi, be it Rosa Parks or be it Pauline Hanson—are prepared to break. I think the secondary boycott provisions are the law that Pauline Hanson has decided she wants to break in the chamber. That is really matter for her. I support the right of trade unionism—
It is Senator Hanson, thank you.
Sorry, if Senator Hanson wants to break the secondary boycott provision, but that is really a matter for her. She did say it was all in the national interest, that she was not going to come here and horse trade. Trade unionism has a role in the place. When she gets a group of four senators together and they decide to go on strike—be it a secondary boycott or not; be it a law that she is breaking or not—that is really just a matter for them. With that, I note that the two following speakers do have a few things they want to say, and I will cede my time to them.
I am going to leave my colleague, Senator Whish-Wilson, to conclude the debate. I have only had the privilege of visiting the Great Barrier Reef once. It was just over a decade ago. I was there with my family, with my kids. They were just entering their teens. They were wide-eyed, amazed at the world. We had an incredible time, just like so many hundreds of thousands of tourists and so many hundreds of thousands of Australians who have visited the reef. It is an incredible, amazing place. Last year, we had extreme destructive coral bleaching, the sort that only happens highly irregularly and very infrequently. Then, this year, the bleaching has occurred again. I hate to think what the reef will look like when my children are in the situation of wanting to take their children to the Great Barrier Reef. Even in a much shorter time period than when my kids have kids, we are going to see the death of this world treasure.
What makes me so angry about this debate is the disregard for the science, the fantasy world that so many of my fellow senators live in and the fact that they can be asserting that total fantasy is fact. There are irrefutable facts that are here that are accepted by the academies of science all over the world, which Senator Roberts, the Liberal Party and government senators are just in complete denial about. We know that there is increasing carbon dioxide that is caused in the atmosphere; it is caused by the burning of coal, gas and oil. We know that that is warming our global atmosphere. It is warming the global temperatures and warming water temperatures, which is causing coral bleaching. The science is very clear. It is also causing bushfires, it is also causing floods, it is also causing sea level rises, it is causing crop failures and it is going to cause irreparable dangers to all of us—to all of our civilisations on this planet and all of the species that we share this planet with—unless we take action. I am extremely concerned about the wellbeing of the people of India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Australia when we are not going to be able to feed ourselves and when our homes are going to be underwater.
We know what we need to do. We have got to stop burning coal, gas and oil. We have absolutely got to stop subsidising the burning of coal, gas and oil, such as is proposed by this government with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund. If we have got $1 billion to spend, let us spend it on rapidly transitioning to a clean energy future and to renewable energy. We could go a long way with that. That is what would be giving us a future, that is what would be saving jobs, that is what would be saving the Great Barrier Reef and that is what is in the interests of all us—workers and the rest of the species we share this planet with alike. (Time expired)
I reflected today, prior to this, on my first speech in parliament, nearly five years ago. One of the key reasons I wanted to go into the parliament and become a Greens senator was to protect the ocean, focus on marine conservation and clean up the ocean. I refuse to accept that one of the biggest living organisms on this planet, the Great Barrier Reef, is going to be destroyed on our watch. I appreciate that politics, this chamber and global politics, has suffered from a severe outbreak of mass moronity, but I will not accept—for my children's sake and for future generations—that we are just going to roll over and let the coal industry and those too stuck in their ideology not take action on this problem in the Great Barrier Reef.
In the last months I have been chairing a Senate inquiry into warming oceans and the impact that climate change is having on the oceans and our fisheries. Let us state very clearly: it is irrefutable that increasing emissions are driving higher water temperatures and it is irrefutable that higher water temperatures are destroying and impacting our marine ecosystems. My committee, the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, has heard that Tasmania has only recently lost its 10,000-year-old giant kelp ecosystems that used to stretch from Eddystone lighthouse at Eddystone Point at the top of north-east Tasmania all the way down to southern Tasmania. I was contacted by Mick, from the Eaglehawk Dive Centre, last year and he said to me, 'Senator, if you are going to come diving on these giant kelp forests, you had better come soon' Well, unfortunately, I missed the boat. He appeared as a witness at our inquiry only a couple of months ago and he said, 'They are gone. The giant kelp forests are gone.'
Let me tell you about the similarity between giant kelp forests in the south of our country, in the southern oceans, and the Great Barrier Reef. They are not just reefs and seaweed kelp forest; they are cities underwater for marine creatures, for biodiversity. That is where our productivity for our fisheries come from—for rock lobsters, for abalone, for fin-fish. If the reefs die, our fisheries industry goes with them. Let us be really clear about this: it is not just tourism jobs that we are debating here today in this motion. We have been going into scientific evidence about the impact that warming waters are having on our fisheries around the country. The committee still has other states to go to, including to Far North Queensland. A scientist who spoke to the committee at One Tree Island in Queensland has been there for 25 years monitoring ocean temperatures, and the committee was told that we are in unchartered territories, that no-one could have possibly predicted that we would have back-to-back bleaching events. No-one could have predicted that.
And it is not just the bleaching events. It looks bad because the corals look like they have died. It takes a long time for these corals to bounce back. They are severely weakened by their condition. So, when we get a dump of nutrients into the water and we get physical degradation from cyclones and other systems, it makes it a lot harder for the coral to recover—and that is exactly the situation we are facing now. I watched Professor Terry Hughes on 60 Minutes last night. I generally have a policy of not responding to the idiocy of Malcom Roberts, but I will say to Malcolm Roberts that it was actually—
Order! Senator Roberts; thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson.
Sorry; Senator Roberts.
Order! I would also suggest that your description of Senator Roberts is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw.
I would dispute that, Acting Deputy President, if I could, because of the context. I did not say that he was an idiot; I said the idiocy of his—
They are not mutually exclusive.
Order, Senator Dastyari! Senator Whish-Wilson, I do not mean to be disruptive. I will refer this to the Clerk, just in the interests of not reflecting poorly on another senator. Please continue and I will get some advice.
Thank you, Acting Deputy President. Senator Roberts seemed to think that this is a Greens conspiracy theory and that we are out to destroy the tourism industry in Queensland. Well, it was 60 Minutes that did the documentary last night—not the Greens. I would not say that 60 Minutes are exactly an ally to the left and to the conservation movement; yet I have to say that it was actually an excellent program. It nearly brought me to tears watching it last night, I was that saddened by what I saw.
I have been hearing the evidence all around the country of this happening in other parts of Australia. The coral bleaching that we have seen in previous events has also happened in other great reef systems, such as the Caribbean corals off the coast of Western Australia. This is a crisis, and those who deny that we need to take action to prevent this situation getting worse are, in my view, climate criminals. There is other way around that, from my point of view—they are climate criminals.
I have to say that the idea that Senator Canavan can come in here during question time and repeatedly, ad nauseam—with an emphasis on the word 'nausea'—talk about clean coal, which I understand only Clive Palmer is a believer in, as though it is some sort of infomercial for the coal industry, really makes me sick. It makes my stomach turn. I have to be honest that I have found myself in recent weeks getting really angry during question time—as no doubt you have noticed, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. I will try to refrain from interjecting, but this issue, I think, is going to be the most important issue for our generation.
Let me tell you—another comment about Senator Roberts—that you do not need proof to be prudent. The insurance industry was founded on the concept that you do not need proof to be prudent; you need to manage your risks. Climate change, under any analysis, is a severe risk.
What do the re-insurers say about climate change?
The re-insurers are exactly the same concept. Liberal senators came into the Senate today and talked about the impact on India if we do not burn coal and develop the Adani mine. 60 Minutes talked about the reef and, during the week, Four Corners ran a movie, a short film, that is being shown around the world that was put together by ex-US military generals and admirals. They are acting on climate change. It is a really good documentary. It is going to film festivals all around the world. I suggest to anyone listening that they watch it. It talks about how climate change is acting as the accelerator for global instability and that it is the biggest threat to global security. They talked about the Arab Spring and they gave examples of how the sea level rise predicted could, in Bangladesh alone, displace 20 per cent of their population as climate change refugees. That is 30 million people from Bangladesh going into places like India—where, by the way, they have built the world's first climate wall to keep out refugees. So do not come in here and give us all this nonsense about burning coal being good for people in poor countries. Climate change is the biggest threat to these countries—with extreme weather events and wars over precious resources—and we owe it to these countries to act. This concept that somehow it is about jobs: well, I have been and dived off the Great Barrier Reef, and I have been to dive off lots of reefs around the world, and I know that, based on what Professor Terry Hughes said on 60 Minutes last night, the latest surveys on the middle section of the reef show that damage to the reef from coral bleaching has gone from moderately damaged to severely damaged. There are 70,000 jobs in the tourism industry on the Great Barrier Reef. I understand why the tourism industry has not wanted to enter this political debate in the past for fear of talking down their industry and loss of visitations to the Great Barrier Reef. I say to them: 'I understand that, but you are going to have to get engaged and get involved if this proposition is going to be viable into the future.' The reef is still going to continue to be a global tourism attraction. We have to actually act to protect the reef and the marine life that lives in the reef.
These warming waters are damaging marine life and marine ecosystems all around the country. It is an irrefutable fact that if we do not cut down on our emissions then this is going to continue to get worse. And, as a large bald-headed man who was a singer for Midnight Oil once said, 'Sometimes you have to take the hardest line'. We will take the hardest line on any new coal fired power stations, the clean-coal myth and any new coalmines because someone has to stand up for future generations and our marine creatures to make sure we have a planet that is liveable for the next 50 years. (Time expired)
Before I invite the Deputy President to resume the chair, Senator Whish-Wilson, during that conversation I asked you to reconsider the use of a term that you used. I am advised by the Clerk that it is not unparliamentary. However, there is a standing order that suggests that we should not be reflecting poorly on other senators simply for voicing their opinions. As the chair, that is how I seek to uphold the standing orders. But you have done nothing incorrect. I merely remind senators that this is a debate of substance rather than reflecting on other individual senators.
If I could just add to that ruling for the record that I was referring to the senator's arguments.
Yes, I perfectly understand that, Senator Whish-Wilson, and you are within your entitlements to do that. I am just trying to maintain as much decorum within the debate as we possibly can.
Thank you.
by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 25th Annual Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Natadola, Fiji from 15 January to 19 January 2017. I also seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I was a member of the delegation, along with the delegation leader, the member for Leichhardt, and the member for Paterson in the other place and Senator Williams from here. The APPF is an assembly of members of national parliaments in the Asia-Pacific region, which has met every year since 1993 to discuss matters of mutual concern. Issues the APPF deals with are mainly strategic, economic, social and cultural in nature. The APPF is important to the Australian parliament as a parliamentary association of members who share Australia's region. Key regional countries with which Australia has strong links send delegations to APPF meetings. Such countries include Canada, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea and Thailand, and a number of Pacific Island countries, including this year's host, Fiji.
Each conference is structured around a number of plenary sessions and working groups and a drafting committee that considers a range of resolutions from the discussions. Participating countries submit draft resolutions that form the basis of the discussion sessions and subsequent conference resolutions finalised through consensus. The sessions were under the themes of 'political and security matters', 'economic and trade matters' and 'regional cooperation'.
The four draft resolutions forwarded by the Australian delegation reflected the interests of the delegation members. The member for Paterson and I took carriage of two resolutions: one on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in the region, and the other on increasing the participation of women in politics. Through several meetings, and with the active support of all of the Australian delegation, Australia lobbied for an initiative call for future APPF meetings to include a meeting of women parliamentarians as a standing agenda item. The member for Leichhardt took special responsibility for carriage of a draft resolution on regional and subregional strategies for combatting communicable and non-communicable diseases in the Asia-Pacific region— (Time expired)
Thank you, Senator Moore, your time has expired.
Can I table the rest of my speech? There are just a few lines more.
Yes.
Thank you, Senator Moore.
I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the death of a work-for-the-dole participant.
I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Discharged—
Senator Hume
Participating member: Senator Williams
Appointed—
Senator Williams
Participating member: Senator Hume
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Discharged—
Senator Williams
Participating member: Senator Hume
Appointed—
Senator Hume
Substitute member: Senator Williams to replace Senator Macdonald from 27 March to 3 April 2017
Participating members: Senator Macdonald and Williams
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Williams to replace Senator Macdonald from 27 March to 3 April 2017
Participating member: Senator Macdonald.
Question agreed to.
These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT (2016 MEASURES No. 1) BILL 2016
SECOND READING SPEECH
I am pleased to introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No.1) Bill 2016, which amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
A number of the measures in this Bill support the recommendations made by the Expert Panel Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation about improving key aspects of the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods.
The reforms reflect extensive consultation undertaken by an Expert Panel led by Emeritus Professor Lloyd Sansom AO, a distinguished educator, researcher and policy adviser in the health and pharmaceutical sectors. Professor Sansom was assisted by Mr Will Delaat AM and Professor John Horvath AO.
The Review found that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is well respected internationally and benchmarks well against overseas regulators. However, it also identified areas for improvement, particularly in relation to providing industry with more flexible and timely pathways to market; enabling patients to access new medicines and medical devices faster; increasing collaboration with overseas counterparts to minimise regulatory burden; and enhancing post-market monitoring of the safety of products.
The purpose of this Bill is to make a number of such changes that will enable members of the public to have access to medicines and medical devices more quickly, while continuing to maintain high standards of safety and efficacy which the public expects - and decrease the regulatory burden on industry and on medical practitioners.
The Bill includes measures which support the introduction of new expedited pathways for the marketing approval of certain medicines and medical devices, by providing a regulation-making power to set out the details of the new pathways for priority review. The detail will be set out in the regulations and will include, for example, the criteria for goods to utilise these pathways, how to apply, what fees may apply etc. Such details will be the subject of extensive consultation with industry and other relevant stakeholders before any such regulations are made.
Expedited pathways for the registration of certain new medicines are intended to facilitate earlier access for patients with serious and life-threatening conditions who have unmet clinical need. Expedited review processes will also be available for certain medical devices that are identified as novel, such as a device which represents a use of a breakthrough technology and also meets the criteria of addressing an unmet clinical need. The criteria for these pathways are currently being developed in close consultation with consumers, health professionals and industry.
Recognising that some important new medicines will be available to patients at an earlier stage, the Medicines and Medical Devices Review recommended that the current post-market monitoring framework in Australia be enhanced through a more comprehensive monitoring scheme for medicines and medical devices. The Bill supports the implementation of this measure by enhancing compliance requirements for medicines sponsors.
The Bill supports another Review recommendation to allow certain kinds of variations that do not impact the quality, safety or efficacy of medicines to be made through notification. This approach is similar to practices adopted overseas. The Bill provides for regulations to identify what are likely to be low-risk, straightforward changes to product details.
The Bill also contains measures to support the Review recommendation to allow easier access to certain unapproved therapeutic goods by health practitioners through notifying the TGA rather than by requiring pre-approval.
The Bill provides for regulations to be made to allow Australian companies to undertake conformity assessments of the manufacture of medical devices in Australia, rather than the TGA or overseas-based assessment bodies being the only ones able to do such assessments. The precise nature of these details will be the subject of extensive stakeholder consultation before any regulations are made.
The Bill also provides for regulations to prescribe time periods within which decisions in relation to listed complementary medicines must be made.
These timeframes would be the subject of industry consultation before being implemented in regulations. This change removes a barrier to bringing innovative products to market – statutory timeframes provide a degree of certainty and allow sponsors to plan for the roll-out of a new listed product containing the new ingredient.
The Bill provides review and appeal rights for sponsors seeking approval for the use of a new ingredient in listed medicines.
The Bill includes measures to support the intent of other Review recommendations in relation to consolidating TGA advisory committees. A number of minor amendments in the Bill aim principally to achieve greater consistency between the regulation of different types of therapeutic goods and to reduce health risks to the public.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (ENTERPRISE TAX PLAN) BILL 2016
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill forms a key component of the Government's reform agenda to improve Australia's tax system for businesses.
These actions will provide the encouragement needed for Australian businesses to grow and create jobs.
The amendments contained within this Bill provide much needed support to businesses by:
These amendments will enable Australian businesses to reinvest more of their earnings in employing more Australians and growing their businesses – this will benefit all Australians.
This will drive investment, allowing us to keep our living standards high and improve wages.
Since 2001, Australia has gone from having one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world to now offering one of the highest. There are only five advanced countries with higher corporate tax rates than Australia.
This Bill therefore is an important step for Australia – it will allow Australian businesses to once again be globally competitive. It will assist our businesses to succeed both at home and internationally. And it will encourage businesses to remain in, or relocate to, Australia.
We are improving the tax system for business and better aligning it with a culture of business investment and development to foster jobs and growth.
As productivity rises, more than half the economic benefits of a lower company tax rate will go to workers in the form of higher real wages.
Complementary Government initiatives will ensure businesses are not able to avoid paying tax and are required to pay their fair share. Whilst the Government is keen to support businesses with lower taxes, those businesses which seek to pay no tax will be caught and punished. Initiatives include tougher rules for multinationals that shift profits offshore, enhancing the ATO's enforcement capabilities, and changes to improve corporate transparency.
We are also making sure that small businesses, that is 96 per cent of all businesses in Australia, improve their cash flow and reinvest in their business, should they choose to do so.
Small and medium businesses are the prime drivers of jobs and growth in our economy. They are also overwhelmingly Australian owned and more likely to reinvest their earnings in future growth as they seek to build their businesses.
A tax on their business is a tax on their enterprise which ends up being a tax on the jobs that they create. A national economic plan for jobs and growth must back these businesses. When they invest and grow, we all win.
These are some of the businesses I have been visiting since I have become Treasurer, which will benefit from the changes put forward by this Bill:
They are all small, family businesses. They are all growing and looking to employ more Australians.
Our economic plan, which this Bill is part of, does not punish these businesses for growing.
We do not believe that they become multinationals when their turnover increases to more than $2 million and neither do they. The prize for their growth should not be a higher tax rate.
That is why this Government supports the introduction of this Bill to bring down taxes for Australian businesses.
I will now turn to the specifics of the Bill.
Schedule 1 to this Bill amends the Tax Rates Act 1986 to reduce the company tax rate.
In the 2016-17 income year, businesses with turnover below $10 million will face a tax rate of 27.5 per cent. The turnover threshold to qualify for the lower tax rate will be raised to $25 million in 2017-18, $50 million in 2018-19, $100 million in 2019-20, $250 million in 2020-21, $500 million in 2021-22, $1 billion in 2022-23 and removed entirely in 2023-24.
The corporate tax rate for all companies will then be progressively cut to 27 per cent in 2024-25 and by one percentage point in each subsequent year until the corporate tax rate reaches 25 per cent in 2026-27.
Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to align the maximum rate for the distribution of franking credits to be consistent with the rate of tax faced by the company making the distribution.
Schedule 5 to this Bill makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act1997 to reflect the reduction in the corporate tax rate.
Schedule 2 to this Bill increases the small business unincorporated income tax discount to 16 per cent from the 2026-27 income year. In the 2025-26 income year and earlier income years, a lower rate will apply.
For the 2016-17 to 2023-24 income years, the unincorporated tax discount will be 8 per cent.
For the 2024-25 income year, the discount will be 10 per cent. For the 2025-26 income year, the discount will be 13 per cent.
The tax discount will continue to be capped at $1,000 per year.
Providing unincorporated small businesses with a reduced rate of tax improves their cash flow and enables them to retain more earnings, which can be reinvested into their business. It also ensures that small businesses benefit from a reduced rate of tax regardless of whether they are operated as companies, sole traders, partnerships or trusts.
Schedule 3 to this Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act1997 to increase the aggregated turnover threshold for access to many small business tax concessions to $10 million.
The aggregated turnover threshold for access to the unincorporated small business income tax discount will be increased to $5 million, and the current aggregated turnover threshold of $2 million will be retained for the small business capital gains tax concessions.
More than 90,000 additional small businesses will be able to access a range of small business concessions. These include simplified trading stock rules, a simplified method of calculating Pay-As-You-Go instalments by the Australian Taxation Office and the option to account for GST on a cash basis and pay GST instalments as calculated by the Tax Office.
On average, smaller businesses face higher costs of complying with their regulatory obligations as a proportion of their turnover and income, compared to larger businesses.
Eligible businesses can use the small business concessions to reduce their tax liability and compliance costs and improve their cash flow.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
At the request of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the reports be printed.
I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the ADF's resistance-to-interrogation training together with documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the reports be printed.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
In speaking to this report, I just want to put on the record the collegiate nature of the work of the committee. As always, we have attempted to get a well-balanced report based on evidence, and it has been a successful endeavour.
This report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee examines a number of issues surrounding the operation of what is commonly referred to as Defence's resistance-to-interrogation training activities.
The committee accepts that all military operations conducted overseas carry some risk that ADF personnel may be captured, detained, interrogated and exploited by an adversary, foreign military or foreign government. RTI training is designed to mitigate this risk by simulating the realistic captivity of participants by using trainers to role-play a variety of capture scenarios.
The committee's report clearly differentiates between RTI training and conduct-after-capture training. Defence conducted a review of RTI training in 2004 which incorporated a number of changes including improvements to safety and accountability. As a result of the review, the training was renamed conduct after capture in 2006.
Defence told the committee that conduct after capture also brought Defence's training in to line with Australia's coalition and NATO partner best practices. It told the committee that a legal review of the training framework completed in April 2016 and conducted by a senior counsel of the NSW bar found that the training is compliant with Australian domestic law and applicable international legal obligations.
This inquiry at the outset presented two practical difficulties for the committee. First, the committee decided early on to receive all submissions in camera due to the sensitive nature of the evidence which disclosed details of the training methods used by Defence. The committee accepted Defence's argument that disclosing details of RTI training methods could, in a worse-case scenario, pose a risk to the lives of ADF personnel captured or detained in the future. However, in finalising its report the committee agreed to publish some non-sensitive in camera evidence to enable readers to understand the basis of the committee's findings and recommendations.
The second difficulty faced by the committee is that it received only a handful of submissions from ADF personnel who participated in RTI training in the 1990s, and one submission from an officer who completed conduct-after-capture training after 2004. To assist the committee, Defence agreed to put together a sample video which the committee viewed at the Russell Offices in February together with a confidential briefing by a subject-matter expert.
The committee's main concerns as summarised in the report relate to the conduct of RTI training during the 1990s and the lasting negative effects of the training on participants. It became clear to the committee as it heard evidence from those who had completed the training that the controls currently in place for CAC training were not in place during the 1990s and early 2000s. The Australian Psychological Society told the committee that it is safe to assume that up to 10 per cent of RTI training participants may continue to live with physical and psychological injuries.
The report identifies three main areas of concern and makes five recommendations.
First, the committee questions whether Conduct after Capture Level C practical immersion training, which was introduced in 2006, is the most effective and safest method to enable ADF personnel to survive with dignity in the event of capture. It remains an open question whether the risk of injury to participants is too high and outweighs any potential operational benefits. Indeed, some witnesses speculated whether this type of training has any proven benefit at all.
Second, the committee was disturbed by allegations that Defence failed to obtain the consent of some participants before the commencement of RTI training. It also heard evidence that on at least one occasion in 2006 volunteer declaration forms were provided to trainees only after they had been captured. The committee is not convinced that Conduct after Capture training can be undertaken with participants' 'informed consent' when details of the training, including the risk of injury, are not fully disclosed. This is why the committee recommends that participants be provided with all relevant information on the nature of the training activity before they sign a volunteer declaration form.
Third, the committee heard some disturbing evidence from former and serving ADF officers who are living with chronic and debilitating physical and psychological injuries caused by the RTI training they completed in the 1990s. The committee is concerned that a potentially large cohort of RTI trainees in the community may have acquired a physical or mental health condition long after completing their RTI training, but did not seek treatment or assistance from Defence or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Defence does not have a process to identify and assist these former trainees, a situation the committee believes Defence should rectify.
The committee believes that Defence should be doing more to accept its duty of care for ADF personnel who were physically and psychologically injured due to their RTI and CAC training but never received any follow-up assistance and treatment by Defence. The committee recommends that Defence conduct an audit of its records to identify and reach out to those individuals who participated in RTI and CAC training, and provide advice and support for those who continue to live with physical and psychological injuries as a result of their training experience.
I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Prior to question time, I was speaking about Apple and how, through Apple Sales International and a tax haven in Ireland, it can get away with an average tax rate of just four per cent. The huge multinationals Facebook and Google seem no different. Although Google earned an estimated $2.5 billion in income from local Australian online advertising in 2015, it only declared revenue in Australia of one-fifth of that. Google paid just $16 million of tax that year, a paltry 0.64 per cent of its estimated revenue of $2.5 billion. This means that Google is only paying $1 in tax for every $157 they earn in revenue. This is a tax rate that any person in this chamber, and certainly any Australian, would either be envious of or appalled by, or maybe a bit of both. It is wrong, and it needs to change. Facebook Australia is wholly owned by Facebook, its parent company in the United States. By market capitalisation, Facebook is a $400 billion company, and it makes more than $1 billion in profit every three months.
These figures are absolutely staggering in their size. Yet, in 2015, Facebook Australia's gross revenue figures were reported to be a measly $33.5 million. Investment bank Morgan Stanley estimated that Facebook Australia actually earned between $500 million and $600 million from advertising in our country in 2015, yet Facebook Australia only paid $814,000 in tax. Many would find that absolutely disgraceful.
Facebook, Google, Apple and a plethora of other multinationals are absolutely dudding the Australian people. So, what can we do? Well, a diverted profits tax is an important reform to ensure companies in sectors like high-tech and pharmaceuticals are not able to shift profits offshore by using schemes like having inflated charges for their intellectual property located in low- or no-tax jurisdictions. This deals with that intellectual property being based offshore in order to avoid paying tax.
When it comes to a company like Facebook, we have another problem—one that will not be dealt with by the diverted profits tax, and one that ought to be dealt with sooner rather than later. This applies to Google as well. That is a business model where local news content is being overtaken by news content hosted and driven by an offshore company, where that offshore company does not have to follow the same rules and regulations, such as local media content standards, as onshore-based news content makers and distributors. Effectively, these companies can cannibalise Australian media content paid for by Australian media companies employing journalists, whether it is TheGuardian, News Limited, Fairfax, the television networks and a whole range of other media companies that have a strong Australian presence here; and whether they are locally owned or overseas offshoots of media companies that do provide a lot of local content, such as Guardian Australia, BuzzFeed and Huffington Post.
We need to level the playing field, and one way that can be done is to have a withholding tax that is targeted at the revenue generated by online news content makers and distributors operating in Australia but based offshore. I note that the European Union is now looking at changing modern EU copyright rules for European culture to flourish and circulate, and we ought to look at what is happening there. The European Commission's press release issued out of Strasbourg on 14 September 2016 indicates the level of concern that the Europeans have in relation to this. Any withholding tax should be set at a rate that means these companies are making a payment on the revenue they generate and will have a sufficient amount to be able to cover their costs and still have a reasonable profit, but they need to be transparent about it. This is something that is posing an existential threat to Australian media in this country. If the withholding tax is at too high a level in a year, then the company can apply to the ATO to demonstrate that, and be able to gain a refund so that they are not having the withholding tax eliminate their profit altogether or even eat into the revenue needed to pay for their costs.
The reason why this is not covered by regular corporate tax is that this is not revenue going to their Australian arm, so regular corporate tax will not capture the profits made by the company. The reason why this may not be captured by the diverted profits tax is that this is likely to be a regular transaction—in other words, it is not one designed to avoid paying tax on their profits in Australia but a genuine transaction by customers to their offshore company.
When you consider that, for every new online advertising dollar, 90c of that is going to Facebook and Google, that is almost a duopoly the likes of which Coles and Woolworths would be envious of. That is something that needs to be dealt with. It cannot be dealt with in the context of this bill. It ought to be dealt with in the context of media reform laws in this country, but it is indicative of the approach in this bill that there may be a useful way forward, looking at the approach that the government has had in respect of the diverted profits tax.
These measures in this legislation are an important step in the right direction. They are a step towards ensuring that everyone who directly benefits from the Australian economy pays their fair share of tax so that those who do the right thing do not have to bear an unfair burden compared to those who do not.
Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 and the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017. The legislation continues the government's strong stance against multinational tax avoidance. It implements three new measures announced in the government's 2016 budget. Most taxpayers, of course, comply with Australia's tax rules and pay the right amount of tax. However, there are some who do not. There are some who try to avoid paying Australian tax by diverting Australian profits to low-tax countries. The measures in this legislation will help ensure that the Australian tax payable by significant global entities properly reflects the economic substance of the activities that those entities carry on. This legislation also encourages multinationals to provide relevant information and cooperate with the ATO to ensure faster resolution of tax disputes.
The diverted profits tax will strengthen Australia's anti-avoidance rules and complement our transfer pricing rules by targeting multinationals who enter into agreements with offshore related parties that lack economic substance to avoid Australian tax by diverting profits to lower tax countries. It is expected that the diverted profits tax will apply in very limited circumstances. Most companies do the right thing and meet their tax obligations. The diverted profits tax is focused on tax avoidance arrangements that are artificial or contrived.
The diverted profits tax will, firstly, allow the commissioner to impose the diverted profits tax on the basis of a reasonable assessment of the available information and, secondly, impose an up-front tax liability payable on the amount of the diverted profits at a penalty rate of 40 per cent. Thirdly, where a multinational challenges a diverted profits tax assessment through an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, it will generally be unable to introduce information that was not previously made available to the ATO.
We will also introduce tough penalties for multinationals who fail to comply with their tax-reporting obligations. From 1 July 2017, large multinationals that breach their tax-reporting obligations will now face penalties of $525,000 rather than $5,250. The increase is much more in line with the financial size and capacity of large multinationals and will provide greater incentive to comply with their tax-reporting obligations.
The transfer pricing rules will also be updated to give effect to the 2015 OECD transfer pricing recommendations. These changes will ensure that our transfer pricing rules remain in line with international best practice and, together with the diverted profits tax, will help ensure that profits made in Australia are taxed in Australia.
These changes also send a clear message to multinationals and the international tax community that Australia is absolutely committed to combating multinational tax avoidance. We continue to be a leader on the world stage in this regard. We have been at the forefront of international progress in implementing the OECD's base erosion and profit-shifting agenda. We have been an early adopter of the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting recommendations and are taking steps to ensure that our rules not only comply with our agreed minimum standards but are effective across all BEPS issues. We continue to implement the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Package and are currently progressing work on new rules to enhance the ATO's ability to detect tax avoidance by requiring advisers to report aggressive tax schemes to the ATO.
The government is taking a strong and world-leading but balanced approach to multinational tax avoidance. The Turnbull government has said that enough is enough when it comes to multinationals diverting profits offshore and failing to meet their tax disclosure responsibilities. I commend this legislation to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
We do have one amendment to the schedule, which I foreshadowed in my speech on the second reading. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8098 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017:
(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (line 26), omit "80%", substitute "90%".
I just want to briefly speak to this and ask Senator Cormann a couple of very quick questions. I understand that the current threshold of diverted tax that the ATO commissioner will use is 20 per cent of diverted tax. My question, Senator Cormann, is: why was 20 per cent chosen? I understand that the commissioner still has discretion, even at 20 per cent or above, as to whether they will pursue a tax ruling or an investigation, if you like. Could you please just briefly explain to me why 20 per cent was chosen?
It was chosen, firstly, based on the consultation and, secondly, because this is following the precedent that was set in the United Kingdom in their equivalent diverted profits tax scheme. The view is that, if you capture more, you end up tying up the ATO in audits and investigations in relation to lower risk businesses. We want to focus, obviously, at the right end and we want to make sure that the scheme is properly targeted. But the short answer is: it is based on consultation and it is based on what was chosen in the United Kingdom, where this measure was introduced a while ago.
From what I understand you have just said, the 20 per cent threshold was chosen because it was in the UK bill, which is often called the Google tax. I think that was the first of its kind in the world. The threshold that the Greens propose to introduce is a lower threshold so that, if 10 per cent or more of tax has been diverted or the ATO suspects it has been diverted, it can choose to begin an investigation or seek redress. I note that, whether it is 20 per cent or 10 per cent, or even 50 per cent, the commissioner has discretion. No doubt they will use that discretion based on risk return and what they expect to gain from the investigation versus the costs of that investigation and the opportunity cost more broadly. I understand that, even at 20 per cent diverted profit, the commissioner is not guaranteed that they will seek investigation.
We have been speaking to our own stakeholders and we believe a 10 per cent threshold is more appropriate considering that there is still discretion as to whether the commissioner will pursue an investigation. Could you clarify for me, Minister, whether it is the case under the current 20 per cent provision that the ATO commissioner has discretion as to whether they will pursue an investigation or whether they actually have to if they believe 20 per cent or more of tax has been diverted.
My clear advice is that the tax commissioner does not have the discretion that you are suggesting. Why don't I talk you through the reasons the government is opposing your amendment. The government does not support increasing the foreign taxes carve-out from at least 80 per cent to at least 90 per cent of Australian taxes paid, firstly, because we have extensively consulted on this and we believe that we have the right balance here. It is, of course, the precedent in most countries and specifically the UK, which was the first to legislate this diverted profits tax and has the equivalent 80 per cent threshold in its legislation.
This amendment is a bit of policy on the run, we suggest. Increasing the carve-out will not actually help us fight tax avoidance. The companies that the tax office and Treasury have identified as the greatest risk are those companies that are paying 80 per cent or less of the company taxes they would be paying had they been recognising the profit in Australia. Increasing the test to 90 per cent would bring in lower risk companies that are doing the right thing. It would increase compliance costs for the Australian Taxation Office and mean their audit processes would be less targeted. It would also increase the cost of compliance for businesses doing the right thing and reduce business certainty and confidence.
The other point that I would make in response to the issues raised by Senator Whish-Wilson is that it is important to remember that transfer pricing rules will still apply, that the general anti-avoidance provisions will still apply and that this comes over and above all of the other anti-avoidance measures that are already enshrined in our relevant tax laws.
Bills agreed to.
Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Labor supports the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, which makes a number of changes to the Customs Act and related legislation. The most significant changes concern tariff concession orders which are granted on imported goods when substitutes are not being produced in Australia. These goods can then be imported duty free. The Commonwealth tariff concession gazette publishes about 50 new concession orders a month. Australian manufacturers have 50 days to object before the order comes into effect by producing evidence that the same product is manufactured in Australia. They can also apply to have existing orders revoked. At present, manufacturers lodging objections or seeking to have orders revoked have to satisfy two tests. They must prove that at least 25 per cent of the factory costs of substitutable goods occurs in Australia and that a substantial process of manufacture occurs here. Providing this evidence might mean that Australian businesses have to release confidential accounting records.
The bill reduces the burden of proof for Australian companies by abolishing the 25 per cent requirement. It also clarifies the requirement for Australian producers of made-to-order capital equipment who are seeking to revoke an order or objecting to a new one. These manufacturers will now have five years rather than two to prove their capability. This change acknowledges the fact that two years is insufficient to demonstrate capability to produce equipment for large-scale capital works such as major mining projects, given the time and labour involved in such manufacture. Stakeholders in the manufacturing sector have assured us that they support these changes, which simplify procedures for their members.
The bill allows Australia to honour international agreements that specifically exempt certain imports from fees to be paid at the border. The bill allows the minister to determine by legislative instrument that import processing charges are not liable to be paid by specified persons, persons in respect of specified goods and specified persons in respect of specified goods.
The bill also amends the act to extend the circumstances in which a person can apply to move, alter or interfere with goods for export that are subject to Customs control. It means that screening staff at airports, for example, will be able to open duty free bags and to remove from duty free packaging an item that has triggered an alarm, without infringing the act. In an amendment to the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act, the bill allows officers to inspect imported goods that they reasonably believe to be proscribed by regulations. These are all sensible changes and Labor is pleased to support the bill.
Madam Deputy President, I draw your attention to the state of the chamber.
There being no quorum present, please ring the bills until quorum is reached.
A quorum having been called and the bells being rung—
Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to cancel the quorum.
Leave is granted. Please cancel the quorum call.
I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, which sets a closure date for the concessional tariff scheme, defines certain food items and repeals parts of the Customs Tariff Act that are no longer applicable. Closure of the Enhanced Project Bylaw Scheme was announced in the 2016-17 Commonwealth Budget. The scheme provides tariff concessions for some imported goods used in mining, resource processing, agriculture, food processing and packing, manufacturing, gas and power supply, and water supply. The most frequent application of the concession has been in mining projects. However, use of the scheme has declined as the number of free trade agreements to which Australia is a party increases. Users, including mining companies, have not raised concerns with us about the scheme's impending demise. It is worth noting that the end of this tariff concession will not affect obligations companies may have under the Australian Jobs Act. They must still comply with the requirements of Australian Industry Participation plans. This bill gives effect to the budget measure by setting 31 December this year as the closure date.
Perhaps of more interest to Australian consumers will be the section of the bill that resolves two vexing questions: what kind of vegetable is a gherkin? When is a seafood wonton really pasta? Senators who have lost sleep worrying about these questions will be relieved to learn that they need be anxious no more. The answers can be found by reading the bill and its explanatory memorandum—which makes all things uncertain clear. The questions arise from two Administrative Appeals Tribunal rulings on gherkins and seafood wontons. The first case sought to clarify whether gherkins could be imported duty free as edible vegetables, or subject to a five per cent tariff as vegetable preparations. The second case dealt with the import of frozen dumplings and wontons with a seafood filling. It was unclear whether seafood wontons should be duty free under the heading 'Crustaceans, molluscs, and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved', or, whether they should be subject to a five per cent duty under the heading 'Pasta, whether or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared'. This is actually quite a difficult thing to be debating at this time of the day, when across the nation people are starting to think about dinner. The cases were not trivial, however. Incorrect classification of these food items would have real financial impacts for overseas suppliers, for Australian consumers and for the Treasury in lost revenue.
The bill ends the uncertain classification of these foods by adding notes to the act. One note declares that 'pasta includes kneaded noodle dough form into sheets or other specific shapes (for example, rice noodles, wonton skins, Udon noodles and buckwheat noodles), whether or not cooked or stuffed or otherwise prepared'. The other two notes, one concerning vegetables and the other concerning fruits and nuts, allow a distinction between preserved forms of these foods that are immediately edible and preserved forms of these foods that have been treated solely for transportation and are not immediately edible in that form.
Another section of the bill also relates to food. It repeals a section of the act relating to safeguard provisions for tuna and pineapple products included in the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The safeguard provisions expired in December 2008, with the consent of both governments, so the applicable section of the act is now redundant.
Finally, the bill repeals schedule 1 of the act, which lists countries and places where non-reciprocal customs duties apply. This content will now be dealt with by regulations, which are easier to update as required. Labor is pleased to support all these changes.
Thank you, Senator O'Neill, I can assure you that Western Australians are still on afternoon tea.
I thank senators who have contributed to the debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
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.
I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor is not opposing this bill, of course, but when I began this contribution last week I was very critical in my summing-up of the perception of the security levels. One does not argue that we have to make our airports and our ports safe, and as safe as possible in the world we live in today. I was having a fair dinkum crack at the government on some of the nonsense they get up to. This goes back to previous Minister Truss, who is now off enjoying his parliamentary pension wherever he may be, when he introduced the bill to deregister the Australian shipping industry.
The government—ably backed up by their mates the Nats, and no doubt there will be a sprinkling of Independents who will jump in there and give them a hand—have to understand that there are unforeseen consequences. We are not only doing away with Australian jobs, which is just despicable. We are not only opening up the sea lanes for flag-of-convenience vessels. Make no mistake, a lot of the seafarers on those ships, those poor devils, are exploited. So this not a crack against Filipino sailors and seafarers. It is modern-day slavery. It is disgusting. But this government is encouraging it, and it is doing everything it can to see all these Australian jobs go and leave our nation. One of the classic ones was the MV Portland. For crying out loud—they got dragged off their bunks in the middle of the night.
I cannot stress enough to government senators, and government members, how dumb and stupid this idea is, because there is a wealth of experience in our captains, our masters and our engineers—the whole lot. I had the pleasure, which I do regularly, of catching up with my mates from the Australian Maritime Officers Union. If anyone knows their business, it is these guys. They made it very clear to me that I need to share this with the Senate. I was not aware of this, but I am now. I talked about it before we rose last time. When we are at war or whatever it may be in defence of our country—and let us hope we are not—the interface between the merchant navy and the Royal Australian Navy is a cigarette paper's difference. We rely on our merchant navy, our merchant sailors and our merchant seafarers.
Here is a little bit that you lot over there should take a bit of notice of. When there is a warship being built, and we are talking about having a 50-year Navy vessel build here in Australia—and we know all the arguments that have gone on in this chamber, in that other place and in every media outlet, leading into the submarine decision—the Navy cannot take possession of a new warship until it has been commissioned. They cannot operate a warship until it has been commissioned. But new vessels cannot be commissioned until they have undergone sea trials, which identify any issues with the entire vessel's system. So that makes sense. We know that that will not take five minutes and be all over over a cup of tea. This would take whoever knows how long. But, during the sea trials, new vessels are considered commercial vessels and are controlled and operated by civilian merchant seafarers. The RAN will have personnel on board these ships, but it is our merchant sailors, our merchant seamen and our merchant engineers who are the ones who do all the trials.
This blind stupidity coming from that side over there, doing everything they can to appease one or two big companies—because they do not want to pay Australian seafaring wages and conditions—is that they are prepared to tip the whole lot on its ear and proudly wave off Australian jobs. As I said very clearly before, these guys do not get their licences out of a Wheaties packet. They spend years and years learning their trade. Where the hell are our seafarers, our engineers, our skippers, our masters and our captains going to come from? Do you think the Philippines are going to lend us a few? It is absolutely ridiculous.
When we talk about transport security, whether it be ports or airports and all that, it is all very well having the red badge on the ASIC and the MSIC. I get all that. But you have got to be joking: you want to talk up safety and you want to talk up security, yet you are prepared to see all Australian seafaring jobs go. The ships are just about gone, let alone before we start attacking the mob from Broome—those vessels that run up and down the coast that I was talking about when I spoke last week.
So, as much as we are supporting the bill to increase security at our airports, there is absolutely no way—I seem to be going on about this at every opportunity—I am going to let it rest. That mob over there cannot be let off the hook. They want to deregulate Australia's shipping industry and think it is a great idea to have all our vessels sail under flags of convenience, where half the time we do not even know what seafarers are coming in on them. The government can talk a good fight, but that is the truth of the matter. On that, I am finished.
Madam Deputy President, I call your attention to the state of the chamber.
A quorum is required. Ring the bells until quorum is reached.
I seek leave to cancel the quorum.
I remind the Senate that the standing orders are there to either call attention to the state of the chamber or not. They are not there to buddy up or anything else. This is the second time.
If leave is not issued, that is fine.
Leave is granted. Cancel the quorum.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and of Australia I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 and to address some important issues relating to aviation safety. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to prevent individuals with links to serious or organised crime gaining access to Australia's airports and ports. This is an important piece of legislation in relation to access to aviation and maritime areas and zones that will help prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious organised crime.
The bill will strengthen the regulatory framework with common eligibility criteria between the Aviation Security Identification Card and Maritime Security Identification Card schemes; clarify the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of Australian Security Identification Card and Maritime Safety Identification Card applicants and holders; allow for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences against new, serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across both schemes; and insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to court as to parliament's intention. The amendments, however, prescribe that the details be set by regulation, and these regulations will be made at a later time, giving the government power to set and alter them as it subsequently sees fit. Regulations will be made under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2035. I note that the bill implements recommendations from the National Ice Taskforce and the parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
While there does seem to be a pattern emerging with this government of legislation that continually seeks to give the state ever greater areas to restrict, control and punish actions not specifically related to the commission of a crime, there clearly are legitimate issues that this bill seeks to address. A significant question here is whether widening the purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the issue of transport security and targeting serious organised crime in the transport system. On balance, it would seem that it does not. A key related issue in regard to aviation security, however, is that Australia currently imposes a more stringent level of access control than that undertaken internationally. This poses significant costs and impediments to those who regularly use airfields. Given that the United States does not consider this necessary, the question must be asked why Australia would take such measures. The government's own Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation in 2014 found that Australian airfield security was already overburdensome, stating: 'Australia is applying a higher level of access control and background checking than is required by the international approach under Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,'—the Chicago convention—'which requires background checking for access to a safe, security restricted area.' The Forsyth review further stated:
the ASIC scheme has a significant regulatory impost on the industry as a whole
… … …
without delivering a commensurate security benefit.
The report recommended:
The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas, not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.
Obviously, applying a higher level of access control and background checking than is required or applied internationally does not magically make Australian aviation safer, just more overburdened and bureaucratic. Overly burdensome and bureaucratic: it seems we hear these words more and more. Seemingly it is an affliction creeping its way through more and more areas of Australian life. Perhaps we should call it the Australian disease. Implementing these recommendations of the Forsyth review to align Australia's efforts security regulations with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation would have significant benefits for both recreational and commercial aviation, with no adverse effect on aviation security. Moreover, I understand that this change is widely supported in the aviation sector.
I draw the attention of the Senate to this fact and strongly urge the government to implement the recommendations of the Forsyth review on aviation security without further delay. Overregulation will cost people money with no commensurate benefit. It adds to the cost of business and to the cost of living. Otherwise, One Nation supports this bill.
The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 introduces the additional purpose to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 of combating serious organised crime at Australia's airports and sea ports. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are a critical part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors. This bill will prevent the exploitation of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities by individuals with links to serious or organised crime. It will ensure that such persons cannot gain access to their facilities. These amendments will provide for the regulatory framework to support the introduction of new and harmonised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes that better target serious organised crime related offences. The revised eligibility criteria will be set out in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003. In addition to the amendments already mentioned, the bill will clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders, allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that—
Thank you, Minister, you will be in continuation.
Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30
As I was saying, the bill will allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across the ASIC and MSIC schemes and inserting an additional severability provision to provide guidance to a court as to parliament's intention. The bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to strengthen background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious and organised crime cannot gain access to airports or seaports. This will in turn keep illegal guns off our streets and keep our communities safe.
Previously, people with a serious criminal history were able to obtain a security clearance to work at our airports and seaports. This will no longer be possible with the implementation of these legislative amendments. In addition, the bill will also complete a key action identified in the government's December 2015 response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce to prevent serious and organised crime by strengthening the ASIC and MSIC schemes. Organised crime, in particular the importation of illegal drugs, is a serious threat to our nation. These changes are a substantial step forward in the fight to disrupt the distribution of these drugs, including ice.
This bill was previously introduced the House of Representatives on 11 February 2016. It passed the House on 16 March 2016, but lapsed at prorogation on 17 April 2016. Following referral to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in the last parliament, the bill was recommended to progress to the Senate without amendment. The Australian government agrees with this recommendation and thanks the committee for its consideration of this complex issue.
The government does not agree with the recommendations presented by the dissenting report. The revised eligibility criteria, which this bill enables, is the culmination of extensive stakeholder consultation across the aviation and maritime sectors. This consultation concluded that extending the current ASIC and MSIC regimes is more efficient and effective than developing a new and separate scheme to counter serious or organised crime at our airports and ports. The existing ASIC and MSIC schemes are well understood by industry. Introducing a new scheme would likely impose additional costs and lead to confusion and inadvertent noncompliance.
The proposed changes will lift the threshold for less serious and lower level criminal offences. As a result more applicants are expected to be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC, reducing the impact to their employment and increasing the staff available to employers. This bill not only improves the government's ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime, but it also strengthens the schemes existing national security assessment and their ability to protect Australia's airports and ports against acts of terrorism. I urge senators to support the bill to ensure the earliest possible implementation and therefore impact of these vital measures. I thank senators for their contribution to the debate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
By leave—as has been circulated on the grey, I move opposition amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8060:
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Serious or Organised", substitute "Serious and Organised".
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 15), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 18), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".
(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".
(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".
(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".
(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 22), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".
(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 25 and 26), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".
(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 4), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".
Amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) change the phrase 'serious or organised' crime to 'serious and organised' crime throughout the bill. It is a uniform change and will impact the aviation and maritime bills in exactly the same manner. It is important that we get the language right when we are adding new purposes to important legislation. We need to ensure that we are targeting identified problems in a precise manner.
As Labor members in this place said in the last parliament when an identical bill was put forward, we are concerned that the mission of transport security remains tightly focused around managing the post-9/11 security environment. Currently that is about safeguarding unlawful interference at our regulated airports and seaports, and really focuses on terror-related activity. That is the purpose of this legislation.
These amendments are intended to widen that purpose to include targeting serious criminality which may not be unlawful interference of a terrorist type. While serious criminality should be targeted, it is a different focus to terrorism and, hence, this bill. While Labor will not oppose the widened purpose, it is important that it reflects expert opinion and directs resources to the defined problem. That is the problem with what the government has done here. Somehow the problem has changed from 'serious and organised' crime to 'serious or organised' crime. Labor believes we should follow the experts. The government refers to the Ice Taskforce report and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report of 2011 as the basis of this bill, but they and others always refer to 'serious and organised' crime. For instance, the Ice Taskforce report uniformly talks about targeting 'serious and organised' crime. The Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures always refers to 'serious and organised' crime. This is something that the current Minister for Justice should recall, as he was a member of the joint committee at the time. Indeed, the committee recommended the following:
The committee recommends that the scope of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 be widened to include serious and organised crime in addition to terrorist activity and unlawful interference.
This is what the bill seeks to do, but with a less precise definition. The Attorney-General's Department submission on the bill in the previous parliament uniformly talked about targeting serious and organised crime. The law enforcement agencies almost always use 'serious and organised' crime. If you have a look at the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, that is what you will see.
The Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, which Labor supported last year, also referred to 'serious and organised' crime. Indeed, the Senate report on this very bill uniformly talks about targeting 'serious and organised' crime. Despite the use of 'or' throughout, this is never explained. Only the bill itself uniformly talks about targeting 'serious or organised' crime. Even the department's 2015-16 annual report, tabled in the house on 7 November last year, refers to this legislation as targeting 'serious and organised' crime. You will see that on page 30. For reasons of keeping a proper focus, Labor's amendments will extend the purpose and specification of the offences in this bill to 'serious and organised' crime. In the draft regulation, which will specify offences requiring consideration when issuing ASICs and MSICs, we expect that this revised definition will better focus resources.
I would also like to make some comments about the group 2 amendments (7) and (12). The second group of amendments, comprising (7) and (12), will be put in place on a legislative basis for existing review mechanisms. As part of the change package, the government is proposing to harmonise what are currently different appeal systems for the ASIC and the MSIC. ASIC cardholders will have a clearer system of review rights, one equivalent to the existing MSIC system. The amendments will retain the new uniformity between the maritime and aviation systems.
About one-quarter of one million Australians have an ASIC or an MSIC card. For many, the access that those cards provide is crucial to their employment and their livelihood. The amendments will require regulations made after this bill is passed into law to contain a review mechanism that either already exists or is proposed by the government as part of the harmonisation. Inserting into the respective maritime and aviation security acts a requirement for regulations to include a review mechanism provides an extra level of assurance that the system will include reviews when an adverse finding is made.
I indicate to the chamber that the government will not be supporting either of these proposed amendments as put forward. The government is committed to strengthening background checking in relation to the first, replacing 'serious or organised' with 'serious and organised'. The government has committed to strengthening background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious or organised crime cannot obtain access to our airports and sea ports. The inclusion of combating serious or organised crime at sea ports and airports into the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 will keep illegal guns and illegal drugs off our streets. 'Serious or organised' is far broader than 'serious and organised' and will capture people with a serious criminal conviction or organised crime conviction or both.
The opposition are wanting to water down this bill with their amendments. Replacing the 'or' with 'and' will mean that people convicted of a serious crime who acted alone will likely be able to successfully appeal the refusal of an ASIC or MSIC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This watering down is a serious issue. For example, an ASIC applicant who had convictions for cultivating and trafficking cannabis and importing cocaine was granted an ASIC by the AAT because even though he had serious criminal convictions, he was not a risk to aviation security. People like this applicant are why we have brought forward this bill. However, this ASIC applicant acted alone when committing these offences, and under the opposition's amendments it is likely that he would still receive an ASIC from the AAT because he did not commit a 'serious and organised' crime. Does the opposition think this is an acceptable outcome, that it is okay for a person to have convictions for serious drug offences, including importation and trafficking, and still receive an ASIC because they committed their offences alone? The government does not consider this to be an acceptable outcome, which is why the bill refers to 'serious or organised'.
This government is committed to keeping Australia safe. Stopping people with a serious criminal conviction or organised crime conviction or both from gaining access to secure areas at airports and sea ports is a crucial part of this. As for the second set of amendments relating to the introduction of an appeals mechanism for ASIC and MSIC decision into the acts, as I indicated the government will not be supporting this amendment. I understand that the opposition has moved this amendment as they are concerned that the appeals mechanism for ASIC and MSIC applicants in the aviation and maritime regulations could be diminished or removed in the future. The government has no plans to diminish the appeal rights for ASIC and MSIC applicants. There is a comprehensive appeals process in the current aviation and maritime regulations and this process is essential to the administrative transparency of the schemes.
The SOC bill actually expands the appeals process for ASIC applicants by providing them with the ability to apply to the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department for reconsideration of a discretionary decision, an ability that already exist for MSIC applicants. There is also an appeal right the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for ASIC and MSIC applicants. Any future changes to the appeals process would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as all changes to regulations are. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel as advised that including the appeals process in the act would not create any practical protection against future changes to the aviation and maritime regulations.
The Greens will be supporting both sets of Labor amendments. The Greens are committed to safety in our ports and airports, but we believe that extra security measures need to be commensurate and proportionate. In particular, we feel that the measures that are being proposed in this bill are appropriate if they related to 'serious and organised crime', whereas 'serious or organised crime' is setting the bar too low. I note that throughout the minister's second reading speech she referred to 'serious and organised crime'. As Senator Farrell has already pointed out, in all other discussions about this bill the discussion and the debate has been about 'serious and organised crime'. The issue is that, by setting the bar too high, there are going to be many workers who currently are able to work at our ports and airports who maybe denied a MSIC or an ASIC card. Whilst we are committed to safety and want to make sure that the people working in our ports and airports have got the appropriate security checks and are going to be maintaining and non-impacting upon the safety of our airports and ports, we feel that the measures in the bill under a category of 'serious and organised crime' are a level that is appropriate.
This is particularly the case given that we know there is no point on really drilling down and applying incredibly punitive measures upon workers who work in our ports and airports when there are so many other gaping holes in the security of our ports and airports. We have people working in yards just outside of the secure areas who do not have to have these security measures. We have people working up in offices in our cities who are the real people who are planning terrorism attacks, importing drugs or things like that. It is not the people actually working at the ports and the airports. There are no measures addressing those people. In particular, we have got the massive gaps because of foreign seafarers on flags-of-convenience vessels, who in many instances are able to just leave and enter our ports at will without the checks being imposed upon them that are imposed upon Australian workers through the maritime and airport security measures.
For that reason, we feel that we need to get the balance right. Safety and security are very important, but so is the ability to work on our ports and airports by hardworking Australian workers. We feel that the amendments that the Labor Party are proposing are worthy of support for that reason, because they are much closer to getting that balance right and making sure that we are not punitively attacking workers in what may just be a false hope and just providing a veneer of taking action in terms of making our ports more secure.
With the second lot of amendments that the Labor Party have moved, in terms of setting up and making sure that there is a really robust appeals process for people who were denied a MSIC or an ASIC card, we also think that is a very important amendment that is very worthy of support. It is that check and that balance to make sure that we are not just attacking the ability of workers who may have had some history in the past, who may have served their time and who are now being denied the ability to work in our ports and airports. There has to be justice for those workers. If they are denied a MSIC or an ASIC, the appeals process has got to be robust to make sure that they are able to continue to work in our ports and airports.
I think it is important to clarify for the Senate that ASIC and MSIC requirements apply to all persons when in secure areas. Secure areas are those parts of Australia's air and sea ports that are subject to higher security measures to protect the most critical or vulnerable aspects of our transport infrastructure. Not all areas of an airport, port or ship are declared a secure area. If someone who does not have an ASIC or MSIC requires access to a secure zone, they must be escorted or continually monitored at all times by an ASIC or MSIC holder.
The senator referred to foreign seafarers. I can indicate that foreign seafarers who are employed on non-military ships on international voyages to Australia will hold a maritime crew visa, or an MCV. Applicants for a MCV must be offshore when applying for their fees are. In this regard, the MCV improves Australia's security by providing a level of advance notice of persons seeking to come to Australia on a commercial vessel. Like all travellers to Australia, applicants for a MCV are subject to a range of character and security checking processes and an MCV will not be issued to a person who fails the character test or who is a security risk.
I indicate that I intend to support Labor's amendments. This bill allows the government to prevent private sector operators at airports and ports from employing former criminals. That is, preventing people who have served their time and served their sentences from working at an airport or shipping port, even when the government does not consider their employment to be a threat to aviation or maritime transport. That is a blanket ban that is imposed in the hope that some future crime may be prevented. It is lazy legislating and it encourages poor policing.
We should not be quick to adopt job killing legislation, and that is what this is. The criminals who have served their time and completed their sentences have a hell of a time finding a job. If they do not find a job, they are on welfare; they are paid for by other people. The jobs that they might be involved in are not necessarily all that skilled. They might be unloading luggage, fuelling aircraft, sweeping the floor or cleaning toilets. The purported purpose of this legislation originally was a terrorist objective. It has gone way beyond that. It is a job killing bill and for that reason I do not support it.
First of all, I want to go straight to the Parliamentary Library research and reports on this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, which make some concerning comments about organised crime in Australia, and I quote:
Criminal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have also identified risks presented by ‘trusted insiders’ within the civil aviation sector in relation to organised crime, including the importation or exportation of illicit drugs, domestic drug trafficking, money laundering, and smuggling activities.
This bill, by its very existence in this parliament, says to the people of Australia, 'We have one hell of a big problem with organised crime.' The big problem I have with the approach this government has to organised crime is this: are we doing enough? This bill, which I will support, while its purpose and effects will help in the fight against the threat of serious and organised crime, may be seen as just tinkering at the edges of the organised crime problem in Australia when compared with legislation which could be presented to this parliament.
This leads me to some very serious and important questions. Why won't the Liberal, Labor and National parties support national legislation which makes it illegal to be a member of an organised crime organisation? And why is it being left up to the states to approach this very real problem of organised crime in an ad hoc, very unorganised, fashion? If this government can bring to the federal parliament this and other similar legislation, which a federal parliamentary committee says 'addresses a threat which serious and organised crime poses to Australian transport infrastructure,' why can't the same government bring forward legislation which does a proper job on organised crime? Once again, this is half-hearted.
While this chamber ponders that question, I will briefly turn to the independent Library report, which indicates that:
In a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into airport and aviation security in January 2015, ASIO stated, 'We expect civilian aviation will remain a high-value terrorist target for the foreseeable future'. It identified several factors that make airports susceptible to terrorist attack, including that 'terrorists have exploited the trusted access of individuals within the aviation sector in order to overcome security measures'. Criminal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have also identified risks presented by 'trusted insiders' within the civil aviation sector in relation to organised crime, including the importation or exportation of illicit drugs, domestic drug trafficking, money laundering, and smuggling activities.
While I accept that the legislation will help in the fight against organised crime and attacks by terrorists, what about the police and public servants who are at the pointy end of the terrorism and organised crime threat? I would like senators to spend a little time today reflecting on the plight of the men and women who willingly put their lives on the line while they attempt to enforce this Liberal-National party government legislation? Is this coalition government properly supporting those brave men and women of the Australian Federal Police and other Australian security agencies, who kiss goodbye to their families, not knowing if they will return back home to their family in one piece?
In light of recent media stories, it is clear not only that the coalition has failed to practically support members of our federal law enforcement but also that there is a strong case to show that Liberal and National members of this parliament have sneakily betrayed officers of the Australian Federal Police and their families. In fact, while the conservative politicians make grand speeches in this place about this and other legislation which strengthens our terrorism and organised crime laws, they have been caught out weakening the resourcing and staffing levels of the public servants who are tasked with enforcing these laws. Shame on them! It is well known that this government has deliberately set out to cut the budgets, resources and wages of our very own Australian Federal Police officers. This well-documented attempt at betrayal comes at a time when it is not a matter of if a terrorist attack happens but when it happens. You would think that at some point common sense or a love for Australia would kick in for those in executive government who think that it is okay to take resources away from the Australian Federal Police and other government agencies.
I was approached by members of the Australian Federal Police and also family members of Australian Federal Police officers. The information I was given by the Australian Federal Police Association allowed me to table and have the Senate pass last year the following notice of motion, in which I moved:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Australian Federal Police Association warns that:
(i) the 2015-16 Budget Papers indicate the Australian Federal Police's (AFP) fiscal position through the forward estimates will deteriorate to the tune of $112 million,
(ii) as an operational agency, the brunt of this deterioration will be borne within employee ranks, with funds available for employee benefits reducing by $61 million,
(iii) by straight division, this represents a reduction of 450 staff, though the actual number will be higher,
(iv) enterprise bargaining is currently underway in the AFP, with employees being unable to sacrifice sufficient terms and conditions to fully offset the $94 million cost of delivering a two per cent per annum salary increase over a three-year agreement,
(v) the consequence of this will be a further reduction in staffing numbers, by perhaps as many as an additional 400 to offset the cost, and
(vi) in total, the AFP is confronting a situation where up to 1,000 employees could be lost through budgetary deterioration and enterprise bargaining; and
(b) calls on the Government to identify which operational outcomes will no longer be required as the AFP cannot deliver business as usual into the future in this environment.
According to reliable sources, when this notice of motion passed the Senate last year, the justice minister became very, very angry. He and his conservative colleague's betrayal of Australian Federal Police officers was exposed and made public.
Just before Xmas last year I was contacted by a very distressed person associated with an Australian Federal Police officer and I wrote the following to the Prime Minister on this person's behalf:
Dear Prime Minister
RE: Government Budget Cuts to AFP—High Volume Composite Removal from 2017-20 EA
I would like to bring to your attention the attached disturbing letter I received from a spouse of an AFP officer.
You will note in the letter that the above-mentioned removal of the High Volume Composite and accompanying reduction in wages and conditions is reported to affect around 280 members within the AFP and could result in a cut of up to 35% and $40K p/a for certain AFP members.
At a time when our National Security alert is at high, I am very disappointed that your Government through the enterprise bargaining process, seems to have placed this sort of extreme financial pressure on AFP officers, who are tasked with protecting our borders and the lives of all Australians.
I also note your public comments following yesterday's horrific terrorist attack in Germany.
'Australia's police and security forces were the finest in the world and keenly focused on keeping Australians safe.' (source Sky News)
If you truly believe those words, then I would expect you to do everything in your power to protect Australia's finest police officers and security forces from unfair and dangerous cuts to their pay and conditions.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have been asked by AFP officers and/or their families to raise their concerns in the Senate. Should this report be accurate—and a significant reduction in AFP wages is being proposed just before Christmas, it will mean that your Government is behaving in a shifty and heartless manner.
I know that you personally are the opposite of shifty and heartless. So I ask that you please ensure that these matters raised by the family of an AFP officer are properly investigated and remedied as soon as possible.
I look forward to your favourable response by return.
Yours Faithfully and Merry Christmas
Senator Jacqui Lambie
I call on the minister and the PM to give an ironclad guarantee that the cuts in the Australia Federal Police budget, wages and staffing, and capacity to combat terrorists and organised crime, will stop now.
The reduction in Australian Federal Police resources has already been felt in Tasmania. In a local media article published 21 October 2014 and headlined 'Australian Federal Police officers withdraw from Hobart Airport' read:
Australian Federal Police officers have officially withdrawn from Hobart Airport.
The decision to remove 27 federal police officers from the airport came after a $22 million budget cut was announced in the May federal budget.
… … …
Hobart is now the only capital city airport in Australia without a permanent AFP presence.
Following that article, the media revealed last year on 5 July:
The Hobart International Airport is "almost open slather" for drug smugglers, because of the lack of an Australian Federal Police (AFP) presence, a police union spokeswoman says.
The article goes on to reveal:
On Friday a random search by local police with a drug detection dog found $250,000 worth of the drug "ice" on a passenger.
Joseph Roy Wallner, 21, allegedly had 280 grams of ice hidden in his underwear.
Federal police were removed from the Hobart Airport in October 2014, after a $22 million Commonwealth budget cut.
The State Government, Tasmania Police, ASIO and police unions all opposed the withdrawal.
The head of the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA), Angela Smith, said Tasmania had become a soft target for drug smugglers and she called for the federal officers to be reinstated.
"It is the only airport that doesn't have AFP full-time protection presence there, I guess it's almost open slather for these things to occur and its creating problems for the Tasmanian community," she said.
And my goodness, is it causing issues!
Pat Allen from the Police Association of Tasmania, who previously worked as part of the Australian Federal Police contingent at the airport, is quoted as saying:
They say that the AFP is concentrating on terrorism, well that's great and so they should, but we'd be fools to believe there haven't been people on the terrorism watch-list traced in and out of Tasmania.
The article also said:
Mr Allen said the state did not have the resources to properly police the airport.
"You rely on calls from the airport or the odd operation or two but you know, I fly in and out of the airport all the time and I've hardly ever seen a Tasmania Police officer actually down there," he said.
"Our members do a great job trying to stem the flow of ice into the state."
This bill and other similar bills are designed to strengthen our security at our airports and seaports. A simple step that this government could have taken to achieve the same aim is to tighten up on the issuing of the 457 foreign work visas. From my conversations with Australian port workers, it is clear that radicalised foreign workers in our seaports and airports are a grave security risk. Sacked Australian maritime engineers Stephen Dalton and Adrian Morris have explained to me how overseas maritime workers, because of a complete lack of security checks, pose a significant security threat to cruise liners refuelling in Sydney Harbour. Sacked Australian maritime engineer Adrian Morris said to me:
Foreign worker comes in from overseas … we don't know where he came from. We don't know what his credentials are or who he associates with. You bring in a foreign worker who becomes radicalised … and you've got a fuel barge on Sydney Harbour tied up next to a cruise ship … there's a significant risk factor.
We know that the government, for political reasons, wants to attack the union movement and undermine wages and conditions by letting in as many foreign workers on 457 and other work visas, who do not have to submit to the same level of security checks as Australians. It is a ridiculous situation. National security has been placed at risk because the government allows foreign workers access to our vital trade infrastructure, all because they do not like unions and want to lessen wages and working conditions of Australian unions.
I hope that this legislation helps correct this situation. I also hope that all sides of this parliament seriously consider supporting legislation which attacks organised crime from a national perspective and makes it illegal in Australia to belong to an organised criminal group. And let's not make the same mistake that Campbell Newman made and allow politicians and public servants to draw up a list of groups that they said were organised criminals. That is not a decision for politicians and public servants; that is a decision for the courts after the police produce evidence which proves certain organisations are organised criminals. It is as simple as that. That way the separation of powers is always protected, and basic democratic freedoms and rights are also protected. I support this legislation.
The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 is just one aspect of the government's work to reduce serious or organised crime in our community. We are tackling the supply of drugs through increased international cooperation, enhanced intelligence sharing, better controls of precursor chemicals and greater efforts to prevent, for example, ice reaching our regional and remote communities. I do note Senator Lambie's very real concern in relation to ice—indeed, we have discussed that previously. I think it just indicates the importance of the changes that we are looking to bring when we look at ice. The National Ice Taskforce reported that the weight of ice seized at the Australian border grew almost 60 times between 2010 and 2014.
I was very closely involved—as one of the ministers at the time—with Minister Keenan in bringing forward the package of almost $300 million to deal with the ever-increasing presence and negative effect that ice is having on our community. Already this year there has been a large seizure at a port of almost 600 kilograms of ice. The taskforce found that serious and organised crime groups may target trusted insiders working in airports and seaports to help facilitate the movement of illicit drugs and avoid law enforcement intervention. These findings by the National Ice Taskforce are why the government is acting to strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes. We are absolutely committed to keeping Australia safe. The legislation we have here before us is entirely appropriate for moving towards doing everything we can to ensure that we keep Australia safe.
In relation to Senator Leyonhjelm's commentary around employment: overall, the proposed eligibility criteria is expected to provide positive employment outcomes across the ASIC and MSIC schemes. The shift in focus from low-level or minor offences to high-risk offences related to serious or organised crime means that more applicants are expected to be found initially eligible for an ASIC or an MSIC. This will mean these people may be issued their ASIC or MSIC more quickly, reducing the impact to their employment and increasing the staff available to employers.
We appreciate the support of the Greens and Senator Leyonhjelm in this regard. I just listened to the minister's address and noticed that, when she was describing this bill, she used the term 'serious and organised crime'. I am happy if you want to have another look at that. Those were the words that the minister used. I am sure she did not mistakenly use those words. She was doing something quite deliberate.
All we on this side of the chamber are asking—and there is significant support for our amendments, Minister—is that she pick up the words she herself used just a few moments ago. I ask that the minister reconsider their opposition to our amendments, particularly in light of the comments that she herself has just made, and support the amendments that, obviously, have widespread support in the chamber.
The senator may not be as aware of the task force report as others are. That was the language indeed used at the time, but the intent was very clear: that it was serious and organised crime being considered as two separate things. I was merely reflecting the language used at the time. The indication, of course, was that those two things are indeed separate.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8060 by leave moved together be agreed to.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (7) and (12) on sheet 8060 together:
(7) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 4, insert:
4A At the end of Part 9
Add:
126A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations
(1) This section applies if regulations are made, under any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to an area or zone:
(a) section 35;
(b) section 36;
(c) section 36A;
(d) section 37;
(e) section 38;
(f) section 38A;
(g) section 38AB.
(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:
(a) reconsideration by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and
(b) review by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and
(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.
(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:
(a) the Secretary or the Secretary AGD to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or
(b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
(4) In this section:
adverse security assessment and qualified security assessment have the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
Secretary AGD means the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007 (the AusCheck scheme).
(12) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 19), after item 12, insert:
12A At the end of Part 12
Add:
201A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations
(1) This section applies if regulations are made, under any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to a zone:
(a) section 105;
(b) section 109;
(c) section 113;
(d) section 113D;
(e) section 113F.
(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:
(a) reconsideration by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and
(b) review by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and
(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.
(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:
(a) the Secretary or the Secretary AGD to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or
(b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
(4) In this section:
adverse security assessment and qualified security assessment have the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
Secretary AGD means the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007 (the AusCheck scheme).
I do not think I need to say anything more, but I would ask the government, in light of the previous vote, to reconsider their position and perhaps accept that they have misread the situation. They should now reconsider their opposition and support our amendments.
For brevity, I can indicate that the government is opposed to these amendments.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments to schedule 1, amendments (7) and (12) on sheet 8060, be agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8067 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 17), at the end of section 38AB, add:
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), offences which consist of the following are not serious or organised crime unless the offence is connected to terrorism:
(a) being a member of a particular organisation;
(b) consorting with a convicted offender.
(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 19), at the end of section 113F, add:
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), offences which consist of the following are not serious or organised crime unless the offence is connected to terrorism:
(a) being a member of a particular organisation;
(b) consorting with a convicted offender.
If this bill should pass and these amendments not be passed, the ban on employing people should not cover those ex-criminals whose conviction was solely for a nonterrorist crime of association. Having been a member of a bikie gang or having regularly visited a friend in prison should not forever block your prospects of cleaning toilets or unloading luggage at an airport or port. I commend the amendments.
The government will not be supporting the proposed amendments from Senator Leyonhjelm. The existing ASIC and MSIC schemes protect against unlawful interference with aviation and maritime transport and offshore facilities. The purpose of the bill is to broaden the ASIC and MSIC schemes to also capture persons convicted of serious or organised crime offences, to improve the government's ability to combat serious or organised crime. Limiting any serious or organised crime offences to a connection with terrorism minimises the improvement to the ASIC and MSIC schemes. It prevents the government from implementing the recommendations of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the National Ice Taskforce to address serious or organised crime in the aviation and maritime sectors.
The various Australian criminal codes and organised-crime-specific legislation define concepts of 'unlawful or criminal organisation' by reference to serious violence and criminal activity and not in relation to terrorism. These offences have been enacted by state and territory governments to combat serious or organised crime. For a person to receive a conviction under the state and territory organised-crime legislation, a court must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. This is a high bar. Including these offences in the ASIC and MSIC eligibility criteria will assist the government to address serious or organised crime in the aviation and maritime sectors.
I am aiming for a trifecta here. I indicate that the opposition is supporting Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments. These amendments are consistent with the intention of Labor's amendments, which are designed to ensure that the MSIC and the ASIC regimes remain focused on preventing people who would seek to do us harm from gaining access to those areas within our ports and airports. While Labor accepts that serious criminality should also now be targeted, specifically the importation and distribution of illegal drugs and firearms, the government must ensure that this additional purpose does not lead to a loss of focus on transport security in this post-9-11 environment.
In addition, we must ensure that the vetting system does not allow guilt by association. After all, for many people, having an ASIC or MSIC can mean the difference between having a job and not having one. Accordingly, individuals should be held accountable for their own personal conduct, not that of others. For this reason, Labor will be supporting these amendments.
The Greens will also be supporting these amendments. We feel that these amendments would provide a better balance between security at our ports and airports and the rights of people to work at our ports and airports. We think that the legislation as drafted goes too far. Just because a person has been a member of an organisation or associated with somebody who is a convicted offender, we do not believe that is reason enough for them to be barred from getting an MSIC or ASIC. For those reasons, we are supporting these amendments.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8067, moved by Senator Leyonhjelm, be agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017, specifically to support the amendments to schedule 1 and 2 of the bill. This bill seeks to make the Department of Veterans' Affairs 'digitally ready' as part of the government's digital transformation agenda. Its aim is to make legislative changes in support of planned business and ICT reforms that will reduce processing times and automate and streamline existing processes.
As previous speakers on this legislation have noted, there are three schedules that make up this bill. Schedule 1 empowers the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to authorise the use of computer programs to make decisions and determinations as part of a move to an online claims system. This seeks to make the department's business processes more 'veteran centric' and streamline the experience for veterans and their families. Schedule 2 enables the secretary of the department to disclose information about particular cases or a particular class of cases to the public. This will include the ability to disclose the personal information of veterans and ex-service personnel to the public. Schedule 3 brings the existing provisions up to date in terms of drafting precedents and practices.
Labor broadly supports schedules 1 and 3 as measures that are appropriate to the ongoing changes and challenges facing Veterans' Affairs. Schedule 2, however, is more of a fraught proposition and will require serious oversight and regulation. It is heartening to see the government learning from the previous debacles that were the 'census fail' and the Centrelink 'robo-debt' disgrace. The reason that it is heartening is that the idea that a veteran's personal details could be not leaked, not whistle-blown but officially disclosed by the Minister or the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to score points in the media is staggering. Sometimes, people in public life like to say that there are some things that are above politics, some things that we value too highly and regard with such esteem, that they should not be compromised by being used to serve a more lowly purpose. Those who have served our country, those veterans and former service personnel, are to be held in the highest regard.
Speaking of paying respect to veterans, I note with grave concern reports that Kurt Tucker, the President of the University of Queensland Liberal Club, itself a cradle for many a Liberal politician in the federal parliament and in the Parliament of Queensland, declared to his Facebook followers that he would have joined the Nazis had he lived in Germany in the 1930s. I quote:
I openly accept that I would be a Nazi Party member if this was 30's Germany, despite obviously opposing a lot of their core ideology.
I'm political, and to succeed in politics, public service, military, or even industry you had to be an NSDAP member.
I also believe 90% of … LNP members would be the same.
Could there be a more offensive formulation for the 993,000 Australians who served in the armed forces during World War II, fighting the Nazis and their allies? Some 27,073 Australians were killed in action or died; 23,477 were wounded; and 30,560 were taken prisoner of war. Of those taken prisoner, 8,296 died in captivity. Yet this aspiring Liberal politician disrespects their memory, their service and their sacrifice by saying he would have been a Nazi.
It is important that veterans and ex-service personnel who use DVA services are able to do so, knowing that their information will be kept confidential. This is one part of the legislation that the Labor Party has been very strong on and very keep to support. This legislation aims to make vets affairs 'digitally ready' so that veterans and former service personnel are helped by processing times being reduced and by automating and streamlining existing processes. It will make the processes in DVA more 'veteran centric'.
Labor has always maintained that it will not support legislation which gives the department the power to disclose individual's information, unless there is a threat to life, health or welfare. In our view, the department should not be using an individual's information to correct misinformation in the community, and we have been working with the government on the rules which accompany this legislation. The shadow minister for veterans affairs, Amanda Rishworth, in the other place, has been doing great work—
Terrific work.
'terrific work' as Senator Farrell says.
Fantastic work.
'fantastic work'—in this space to negotiate appropriate guidelines around public disclosure. It is simply not appropriate for the department to respond in a public way if an individual has made a genuine mistake about a claim in relation to the administration of the department. If someone is genuinely mistaken, DVA needs to resolve that matter with them directly and not in the public sphere.
It may come as a surprise to some in this chamber, but, as I have said before, we do believe some things should be above politics and mudslinging. These are, after all, the people whom we have sent to war—to arenas of conflict.
I would like to reference a book, What It Is Like to Go to War, by Karl Marlantes, a Rhodes scholar and United States Marine Corps Vietnam veteran. In the dedication of that book, which is partly a memoir, he says:
This book is dedicated to the Marines I served with in Vietnam, those who came home and those who didn't, and to all combat veterans who fought and are fighting now with noble hearts—to all.
This book explores, as its title might suggest, what it is like to go to war and, also, to return from war. It looks at veterans, particularly those who served in the Vietnam War, going to war, and what it is like for veterans to return home to civilian life. It also look at the effects of war on veterans' families. He says:
Too many veterans, from Vietnam but also from Afghanistan and Iraq, are still waiting to come home. Take Raymond, who'd been a Marine in Vietnam and now sells commercial real estate. Raymond is big. You could hug only half of him at a time. Yet his bulk contains a stereotype-defying sensitivity… In the kitchen, the quiet eye of the storm, I talked with Raymond's wife, Dee. She and my first wife shared the not uncommon and deeply disturbing experience of living with a man with post-traumatic stress disorder without knowing where all the craziness was coming from. These women are veterans of a different war. For every veteran alone in the basement, there is a wife upstairs, bewildered, isolated, and in despair from the dark cloud of war that hangs over daily family life. For too many years the public hasn't recognised or sympathised with families of veterans coping with PTSD and has left them in silence.
Last week the Kookaburra Kids Foundation was here at Parliament House. This is an organisation that helps children of serving and ex-serving ADF families, where a parent may be dealing with mental health issues.
A few years ago, I went to see a play called The Long Way Home, which was a collaboration between the ADF and the Sydney Theatre Company. The play, in which soldiers performed with professional actors, focused on the experience of Australian troops who have been physically or psychologically wounded while serving with the ADF.
It is obvious that veterans and ex-service personnel should be treated with the utmost respect, and that includes the processing time being as fast and as efficient as is possible. A digital platform for DVA should facilitate that. There is a recognition that veterans and ex-service personnel might have claims that could be quite complex and that require fast processing. At the moment that does not happen. Claims are not processed quickly, and sometimes, from testimony given at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, we know that those delays can have tragic consequences.
Throughout history, societies have always honoured those who have gone to war on behalf of their people. Veterans have always been honoured, and the sacrifices of those who have died in war have always been held in the greatest and gravest regard. One of the best known tributes to war dead is Pericles' famous funeral oration in the fifth century BC. And, of course, if we were to look across Lake Burley Griffin to the Australian War Memorial, we would see other, more recent tributes.
As the government department that looks after the individuals who have made great sacrifices for our nation DVA, and the minister responsible, should be able to take a mature approach that is in the best interests of all those involved.
In nearly all of the submissions from former Defence personnel and their partners to this inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, the drawn-out process of receiving claims, and their interactions with DVA, are, if not a significant factor in their state of mental health, at least a substantial barrier to their recovery.
I wrote to Minister Payne on 10 March in relation to some of these claims, some of which had come up during the estimates hearing. I wrote that the assessment of veterans' claims with respect to liability—that is, the liability of the department—is prolonged; and, following a liability determination, the finalisation of claims is protracted, drawn out, for months and sometimes for years. We hope that this legislation from the government to streamline the process does result in some significant improvement in service delivery to veterans and their families.
I want to read from two of those submissions. I will not read the whole submissions. One is from an ex-serviceperson who was a member of the Australian Regular Army for 18 months. He was discharged with a spinal injury, including nerve damage. He had surgery. It required a double discectomy, a spinal fusion and the insertion of two plates and six bolts. He was 23 and above the average ARA fitness when he joined. This is what he says:
Due to my length of service and the fact I did not deploy, my submission predominately focuses on my experiences with the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, it should be noted that if my compensation claims and ongoing clinical care requirements had been resolved prior to discharge as required, it is probable that my experiences post discharge would have been greatly improved.
He goes on to say:
All the while my physical symptoms were deteriorating and the stress was beginning to build.
This is because it took nearly nine years for DVA to really have a proper look at his claim. He goes on:
I saw a GP in January 2010 and broke down as I described my physical, mental and financial situation. The GP immediately referred me to an orthopaedic surgeon and provided me with medications from sample stocks. In February 2010 I underwent spinal surgery which improved my physical situation however I was still unable to work and was reliant on the generosity of family to cover the cost of growing medical and personal expenses.
From 2010 to 2012 I contemplated and planned my own suicide multiple times. I was clearly cast aside as a broken piece of equipment and was destined to be a burden at 25. I decided I would not allow my wife to come home to find me in a pool of blood or hanging from a beam so would take a bus somewhere, take all my medications and no longer be a burden or in pain. If it were not for her unwavering support throughout all of this, I have no doubt I would have followed through.
I have one more piece of testimony. This is from a woman who spoke about her husband, who had been a serviceman. She says:
I am a widow. My husband took his life two days short of two years after being medically evacuated out of Afghanistan. He was successful on his eighth attempt. He was never given gold-standard treatment at all. There was no carer support. Defence brings these people back broken, hands them over to a family that have no idea what to do with them, and we are left on our own. I had to be a mother, a wife and work full time and I had no idea how to cope with what I was given.
Medical personnel do not listen to the family. On every occasion, I predicted my husband was going to make an attempt on his life, and they told me I was wrong. These people have to know that we can read them better than they can probably read themselves. They have to give us some credit for having to live with these people 24/7, not just their one medical appointment per week.
… … …
My husband took his life in Darwin. In Darwin, there are four military bases. There is one psychologist and one psychiatrist that deal with PTSD—that is it—and they cover all emergency and first responders. It took six months before my husband even got to see a psychiatrist or psychologist, and then it was once every six weeks … He was discharged from hospital the day before he took his life because he was not a threat to himself … We are giving these poor people that have no mental health training the decision to discharge, and in this case my husband took his life. These people have now got to live with that, and I feel for them—I really do.
I know a lot of this is about DVA, but Defence have really got to pick up the ball on this one because they let my husband down. After eight attempts, how many more warnings do you actually need?
If making the Department of Veterans' Affairs digitally ready and thus more veteran centric will help veterans and ex-service personnel then this bill ought to and must be supported.
I would like to thank all senators for their contribution to this debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I would like to extend my thanks to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for their examination and recommendations in relation to the bill. As the minister mentioned in the other place, their suggestions have improved the bill. As we heard during the debate, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is taking veteran centred reform to significantly improve services for veterans and their families by re-engineering DVA business processes. In anticipation of planned business and ICT reforms amendment is required to provide a sound legislative basis for computerised decision making. Computerised decision making at DVA is expected to streamline services, free up resources and prepare DVA for future ICT upgrades. Computerised decision making would enable some elements of the Repatriation Commission's and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission's decision making processes to be conducted by computer processes rather than by delegates.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs is one of the few client focused departments that does not have a capacity for computerised decision making. Other Commonwealth agencies already use computer programs to make decisions and are seeing benefits for their clients in reduced wait times on decisions and faster processing for claims. It is the intention of the department that in the short term computerised decision making would be gradually implemented only in relation to those decisions and determinations suitable for electronic decision making and when no subjectivity for a decision would play a role. In all cases, it will be the Secretary of DVA who will decide whether a computer program could be used to make decisions, and the secretary would not be able to delegate that power to anyone else in DVA.
The government has decided to accept the amendments made by the opposition, as they will restrict computer decision making to decisions that will not be adverse to clients of the department. The computer decision making measures are incredibly important to allow the benefits of ICT reform to flow to veterans as soon as possible. The importance of passing these amendments has meant that the government has also put forward amendments to schedule 2. The amendments that the government has made have removed the public interest disclosure provision from schedule 2 of the bill. The government believes these changes would have made stronger protections for veterans' privacy, including 15 safeguards that currently do not exist. It is unfortunate that misinformation and misreporting of this provision has meant that the government will forego these safeguards. However, as mentioned, the importance of the computer decision making powers and the need to provide these benefits to veterans has meant that to have the bill passed we have removed the provision.
Schedule 2 also contains information sharing provisions between DVA and Defence. Currently, information about serving members can be provided to the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 but cannot be shared under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 or, if enacted, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988. This is anomalous, especially since the CDF owes a duty of care to members, especially those members deployed in operational contexts. Information sharing can also promote healthy work practices in the military. For example, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission may notice a common pattern of injuries arising out of certain duties. This information should be shared appropriately so that work practices can be adjusted, resulting in fewer members being injured. These amendments would simply replicate existing information-sharing provisions found in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.
The amendments in schedule 3 are minor and technical in nature. They update references to penalties expressed as a number of dollars with penalties expressed as a number of penalty units. Such changes enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book.
I would like specifically to acknowledge the contribution to the debate on this bill made by senators. Senator Farrell noted the constructive work done between the government and the opposition, particularly in relation to the public interest disclosure provisions. As Senator Back remarked, it is vitally important that we put veterans front and centre. The amendments in this bill provide a vital plank for the foundation of veteran centric reform in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator Back also touched on the fact that the government has been listening to the views and concerns of members and senators and the veterans community. When this bill passed the House, several strong amendments were made that addressed concerns. I think the senator for his work on this bill and that of Senator Gallacher. The government would like to thank members of the crossbench for their engagement on this bill also. This bill will go a long way to creating a better level of service for veterans. It will allow the continuation of reform that will mean the department will become a 21st century service provider.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Because there has been quite a lot of ongoing argy-bargy for two weeks and we are all quite tired of it, I am withdrawing my amendments on sheet 8081 and 8082. That has now been taken care of and removed by the government and negotiations have gone on with one, so I am good with that. But, I would like to say a few words.
The government amendments to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017 to omit the public interest disclosure, otherwise known as PID, from Schedule 2 is a win for veterans as their privacy will continue to be protected. Labor's amendment to Schedule 1 of the bill that excludes decisions that are adverse to a client from computer decision making is also a win for veterans by protecting them from computer programs that say no to a claim which would then be assessed by a human delegate. While I would have preferred different language in the amendment such as the word 'liability' as opposed to the word 'service', the outcome, should this amendment be passed, provides a mechanism of protection in deciding veterans' claims by a computer program.
The bill, along with these two amendments, if passed, would permit the Department of Veteran's Affairs to undertake business reforms and implement new information and communications technology, otherwise known as ICT, so as to reduce times on claims processing and improve services to veterans and the community. The bill provides DVA's secretary with the authority to use computer programs to make decisions and determinations in any claims over three separate acts which include the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA; the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, known as the MRCA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, known as the SRCA; and the defence related claims act, the DRCA. But Labor's amendment puts safeguards in place. The bill's intent and amendments are good, particularly in making the necessary reforms and introducing ICT. In doing so, it will likely benefit veterans in that their claims may be processed quickly and efficiently and it may improve overall veterans' services by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The Change.org petition by the South Lake Macquarie sub-branch of the Returned and Services League of Australia, New South Wales had urged this Senate to stop the bill based upon serious privacy concerns by the veterans' community. In less than two weeks, the petition received over 10,000 supporters who electronically signed the petition. Luckily the government heeded the veterans' community concerns and introduced an amendment to address those serious privacy concerns.
In the future the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee should have oversight on the use of the computer programs in deciding veterans' claims. The need for such oversight is underscored by the recent debacle of Centrelink's flawed data-matching program, where the computer program was wrong an estimated 20 per cent of time.
Automated decision making will be useful to speed up claims processes. Noting the DVA computer system and software has yet to be designed and built, there is much concern in relation to initial decisions related to a service injury or disease or reassessment of such. The Labor amendment, if passed, should go a long way to address these concerns, but oversight by the legislative branch is warranted to protect veterans from any future flawed computer program systems. This parliament owes our veterans a duty of care in ensuring there are little to no errors, in permitting DVA to make computer program decisions and determinations, especially with respect to first getting a veteran's foot into the door of Department of Veterans' Affairs.
It was due to the hard work of the crossbench of this Senate last week and this week that caused both the government and Labor to act in introducing their amendments which would better protect veterans' privacy and prevent computer programs from making wrong decisions in rejecting claims for liability. This was achieved by the lawmakers of the crossbench to include me and others introducing amendments to address flaws in the original bill. What this bill and its amendments have demonstrated is that parliament, particularly the Senate, is able to work effectively if lawmakers work together to address flawed legislation.
Before I finish off, I want to say a very, very special thank you. I want to thank Senator Kakoschke-Moore of the Nick Xenophon Team, and especially Pat in her office. I want to make a very special thanks to Norbert, who is a new staff member of mine. I tell you, between the two of them they are a force to be reckoned with. I suggest you remember that for the future. I can see the Department of Veterans' Affairs sitting over there. We now have two very switched on people that are right on your tail. Even though the shadow minister, Amanda Rishworth, was a little slow off the starting block, she certainly made up for it in the end. So: thank you, Amanda. Thank you for your patience, thank you for hearing us out and thank you for making this happen.
I also want to thank, once again—he is always helping out the veterans—Senator Ludlam. Thank you and to your office as well. Thank you very much. This will make a veteran's life much easier instead of having to worry about their privacy being leaked all over the place, which I will not have going on. For thank sincerely those people who really stood up and fought over the last two weeks for Australian veterans.
I am just stating this for the benefit of the chamber: all amendments on sheets 8081 and 8082 have been withdrawn.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (3) to schedule 1 on sheet 8095:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 16), after subsection 4A(1), insert:
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:
(a) a decision or determination that the death of a person is not a service death;
(b) a decision or determination that an injury sustained by a person is not a service injury;
(c) a decision or determination that a disease contracted by a person is not a service disease.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 23), after subsection 3A(1), insert:
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:
(a) a decision or determination that a disease suffered by an employee was not contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee;
(b) a decision or determination that an injury (other than a disease) to an employee did not arise out of, or in the course of, his or her employment;
(c) a decision or determination that an aggravation of an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee is not an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, his or her employment.
(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 30), after subsection 4B(1), insert:
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:
(a) a decision that the death of a veteran was not war-caused;
(b) a decision that an injury suffered by a veteran is not a war-caused injury;
(c) a decision that a disease contracted by a veteran is not a war-caused disease;
(d) a decision that the death of a member of the Forces (within the meaning of Part IV), or a member of a Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning of that Part), was not defence-caused;
(e) a decision that an injury suffered by a member of the Forces (within the meaning of Part IV), or a member of a Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning of that Part), is not a defence-caused injury;
(f) a decision that a disease contracted by a member of the Forces (within the meaning of Part IV), or a member of a Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning of that Part), is not a defence-caused disease.
Labor have raised our concerns about the removal of the human decision-making process for veterans who would not automatically receive a claim. As a result, our amendment ensures that any claim made by a veteran that was rejected in the computer decision-making process would be automatically sent to a delegate for review. Labor believes that by doing this, there is still the benefit of a more timely claims process and there is a safeguard of reviewing any claims that are not initially accepted in the computer system.
To be clear, as an example, should a veteran make six claims and five of those claims be accepted and one be rejected, the rejected claim is sent to a delegate for review, but the five that were accepted continue to be processed. This review process will not require the veteran to be consulted initially, which Labor believes is important, in order for a timely decision and to ensure that the veteran does not feel unnecessarily exacerbated during the process. Labor believes that this will ensure that there are no veterans worse off while also ensuring that the Department of Veterans' Affairs can begin to work towards its veterans-centric reform. Labor recognise the concerns and issues that Senator Lambie has just raised with regard to computer decision-making and on claims for liability, but believe our amendments cover this position and support the amendment.
The government supports this amendment. It will place controls on the computer decision-making provision that will ensure that any adverse decision made by a computer program would be referred to a human delegate of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I would also like to table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.
It is one of those rare occasions—all too rare—and I do not expect this is going to make the morning news broadcasts or the newspapers—where the Senate has actually been given the opportunity to do its job. We shared many of the concerns that Senator Lambie just put on the record, and indeed those that Senator Farrell just noted in introducing the opposition amendments.
For the sake of clarity, what I will do now is withdraw Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8084. For similar reasons, that the government and the opposition actually slowed down the process for long enough to hear the concerns of the crossbenches and, indeed, those outside the building who were working through us to make sure that this was a better bill. As I said at the outset, in my second reading contribution last week, we have absolutely no problem at all with the minister's basic ambition of bringing DVA into the 20th or maybe even the 21st century so that they can speed up some of the processes, automate some of the processes where that is appropriate and so that the human beings within the department can actually spend a lot more time in face-to-face conversations and dealing with the more knotty problems directly.
But if these systems are improperly applied, as Centrelink certainly discovered to their cost and to the enormous cost of some of the people who found themselves going under the wheels of Centrelink, then they can actually create enormous misery. I was going back to the Bills Digest to make sure that we covered off all of the different issues and came across this report in 2004 by the Administrative Review Council, Automated assistance in administrative decision-making. They found that basically, yes, sometimes you can speed up and you can 'reduce inaccuracy and human prejudice' in the interpretation and application of complex rules and 'provide the opportunity for more accurate, consistent and efficient and transparent decisions'. Fine; we understand that is what the minister is trying to do.
They also pointed out:
… the use of expert systems in administrative decision making process is a developing area in which a mistake in the design or operation of such a system has the potential to affect many people.
The reason that the crossbenches jacked up last week, and eventually Labor cottoned on as well, is that potentially you will have decisions being made inside a black box by an algorithm, having had a spreadsheet fed into it. When a decision falls out that is non-reviewable, the veteran just has to suck it up. These are people who have suffered enough on many occasions, and they do not deserve that kind of treatment from the Public Service. I also take the minister at his word when he says they do want to bring things into the 21st century and that that is not the ambition of his officers either.
I think the solution that Labor eventually came to—I know Senator Lambie toyed with a couple of different ideas; so did we—means that basically the burden of proof now falls in the right direction. If a decision is adverse, if the software spits out an adverse finding, then that will go to a delegate, whereas the pay claims and the various other things can just move through much more rapidly if there are no problems. The Greens are very pleased to support this amendment.
I also want to thank Senator Lambie for her passion and her commitment in being the squeakiest of wheels on this issue, and being tenacious and not letting go, and for the constructive way in which Senator Kakoschke-Moore engaged. It was a pleasure dealing with Ms Rishworth, and I would also like to especially acknowledge the minister and his advisers, who did slow the process down. They could have rammed this thing through—we see that far too often in this place—and they chose not to. They chose to slow down, and so we will get a much better outcome tonight. We are pleased to support the opposition amendments.
I rise to make a brief contribution and to make the chamber aware that the Nick Xenophon Team will also be supporting the amendments put forward by Labor to this bill. I would also like to join with my colleagues in acknowledging and recognising the incredible way we have had cross-party engagement and cross-party support for identifying, working through and then rectifying the issues that were raised about this bill.
Computerised decision-making can act for the benefit of veterans. We know this. We know the claims processing times at the moment are incredibly slow. If this amendment means that claims processing times can be sped up, that is a great thing. But I would like to caution that where computers are involved then we, as parliamentarians, need to maintain oversight of that process. If any issues are picked up with the way that this program is being used, any at all, then we must act swiftly on that.
But having said that, I welcome this amendment and the Nick Xenophon Team welcomes this amendment. I thank the opposition for the constructive way in which they have worked with us on this, in particular the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, Ms Rishworth. Thank you, Senator Lambie, for being the vivacious and incredible representative you are for veterans in our community. And thank you to Senator Ludlam for also stepping in to support the push for some sensible reforms to this bill.
I would like to endorse the comments of Senator Kakoschke-Moore about shadow minister Rishworth. I think she has played a terrific role in this process both in terms of the opposition's amendments and the government's amendments. I would like to speak briefly to the government's amendments.
I have not moved them yet.
No, but I am anticipating that you will.
Saving time?
Saving a little bit of time, but I think I need to put it slightly in some context before you move it so that the chamber understands. There are two amendments. I have spoken to the opposition's amendments already, and it is been indicated that there is a general support for that. But as part of that arrangement, the opposition has agreed to support the government's amendments. We have been working with the government on the rules. The ex-service and veterans' community have continue to raise their concerns on the provisions of the bill. Labor senators raised similar issues in the Senate inquiry, specifically issues around the mistake of fact and misinformation.
Overall, the amount of confusion regarding the rules which accompany the legislation led to emerging community concern. Labor had always said that the rules were a disallowable motion and had reserved to our right to disallow them if we were not happy with them. Labor was continuing to work with the government to strengthen the rules to ensure that veterans were not left any worse off. However, we believe their amendment to remove the entirely is appropriate given the amount of community concern.
Labor believes that this has been the simplest solution to what has proven complex and confusing in the broader veterans' and ex-service community. We believe the removal of the instrument will allay the concerns of Labor and those raised by the crossbench. We are pleased that the government and Minister Tehan have listened to and now acted on our concerns and those of the broader veterans' community in dealing with this legislation to better deliver outcomes. As I have indicated, we will be supporting the amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8095 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move government amendments (2), (5), (6) and (1) on sheet JC394 together:
(2) Schedule 2, page 8 (line 3), omit the heading.
(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 12 (line 1), omit "amendments made by items 5 and 7 apply", substitute "amendment made by item 5 applies".
(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 12 (line 2), omit "those items", substitute "that item".
(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 5 to 7), omit the table items, substitute:
The government moves these amendments in order to secure passage of this important computer decision-making powers that are required for the department's ICT reform. The government believes that this provision would have secured safeguards to protect veterans' privacy. Unfortunately, due to persistent misinformation in the community, this provision will not proceed and the status quo will remain.
And we were all getting along so well! I have got to say that sounded to me like something of a cheap shot, to be honest. I am rethinking my decision to withdraw the Australian Greens amendments, but I guess it is probably a little bit too late to do that. This was one of the first issues that came to light. It is probably the issue that most people outside of this building—if they had come across or heard of this bill—would have heard of, particularly in the light of the debacle unfolding around Centrelink.
I will just read very briefly again from the bill's digest so that people who might be listening to the broadcast are aware of what we are talking about. This is the ability of the minister or any future minister to disclose, for any reason that he or she sees fit, private information of Australian veterans—who have potentially been put into the line of fire or damaged in the course of their service to this country—into the newspaper to clean up a public debate or run a particular political line, as we saw Mr Tudge doing in the last couple of weeks. It is absolutely unacceptable. I do not think there is misinformation about it at all.
If it is misinformation, then the Australian Parliamentary Library is also obviously misinformed. Here is the way that they characterised it:
Under these proposed provisions, where the Secretary—
That is the secretary of DVA.
… certifies that it is in the public interest to do so in relation to a particular case or class of cases, the Secretary may disclose any information obtained by any person under the relevant Act, to such persons and for such persons as the Secretary determines. ‘Public interest’ is not defined in the Bill or any of the relevant Acts.
The explanatory memorandum goes on to state some examples that the minister thought was appropriate, but the examples are somewhat moot: it is any person and any information for any reason whatsoever, and there is no definition of what is considered the public interest.
We strongly believe, not on the basis of misinformation but on the basis of analysis, that this allows a senior public servant to leak a veteran's private information to a newspaper in order to win a political argument. That is absolutely unacceptable. I just withdrew that Greens amendments because the minister appeared to take our case at face value, without the kind of snark that we just heard from Senator McGrath. He appeared to take our case at face value that the community are extremely concerned—the veteran community in particular are concerned—that they are going to be put through the same meat grinder that Ms Andie Fox was put through by Centrelink. You find your name and your personal details in the newspaper when the government wants to win a political argument someday.
Our proposal was probably quite a bit simpler than what the government eventually came up with. What the government has come up with here is that they have simply removed the entire section of the bill that made that kind of behaviour possible. I would have congratulated the government for that move. Maybe I will just go over Senator McGrath's head and say to the minister's advisors and presumably the minister who is listening in: thanks for listening to reason; it was not that hard. We support these government amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (2), (5), (6) and (1) on sheet JC394 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—In a similar vein, I move government amendments (3), (4) and (7) on sheet JC394 together:
(3) Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, page 8 (line 4) to page 9 (line 17), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 2, item 7, page 10 (line 20) to page 11 (line 26), to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 2, items 10 to 14, page 12 (line 10) to page 14 (line 18), to be opposed.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that items (1), (2), (7) and (10) to (14) of schedule 2 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017 amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to provide for the appointment of the National Rural Health Commissioner as a statutory office holder. The bill sets out the functions of the commissioner, which will be to provide advice in relation to rural health to the minister responsible for rural health, including by (a) defining what it means to be a rural generalist; (b) developing a national rural generalist pathway; and (c) as requested by the minister, providing advice to the minister on matters relating to rural health reform.
The need for a rural health commissioner has been established but the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017 only goes part of the way to delivering an effective one. Labor supports this legislation but would like to see the government take it further. There are several issues which are obvious from the outset. The commissioner's position will cease on 1 July 2020—in just three years; the appointment itself is only for two years; the position may be a part-time position; the commissioner will be limited in his or her ability to act with full autonomy because they will have to go through the health department for even the most basic of staff requirements; and the role appears to be very narrow in scope.
Why the bill only provides for a commissioner for three years is a mystery. Are all of rural Australia's health needs going to be fixed in that time? Is there some guarantee that no future issues or needs will arise? The Assistant Minister for Health has said that this is 'an incredible and historic occasion'. We believe that the role of the commissioner should be a little more substantial to live up to that description. Stakeholders have advocated and probably expected that the commissioner's position would be a more long-term arrangement that would allow the commissioner to achieve longer term outcomes. The National Rural Health Alliance has welcomed the appointment of a rural health commissioner, in the hope and expectation of a lot of positive changes. The NRHA wants the commissioner to engage with, support and promote policies addressing chronic disease in rural Australia, and to develop key indicators of rural health and report annually on their progress. They sound like long-term objectives. If abolished in 2020, the commissioner will only be able to report three times and will then be gone.
The commissioner's role, as set out in this bill, appears to be very narrow and mainly focused on a national rural generalist pathway. Labor is in full support of the establishment of a national rural generalist pathway; however, the commissioner's role can and should be about more than that. The sobering facts about the health of Australians living in rural areas confirms that they need and deserve quality, consistent health care from doctors and health professionals who are well trained and prepared stay. Many chronic diseases are significantly higher in the country. Suicide rates are double. Dementia rates in rural and remote areas are higher than the national average. With those statistics, it is not surprising that the life span of people in rural Australia is disturbingly shorter than people who live in the cities.
Many of the challenges in rural health directly relate to the health workforce. There is a geographic maldistribution of healthcare professionals in Australia. It is already difficult to get healthcare workers to go to remote areas. Reported cases of sexual assault and physical violence against healthcare providers, both during work hours and even in their own homes, is a major concern for remote health professionals. If we want to attract more people to work in rural and remote areas, we need to improve their safety. The remote workforce, particularly the registered nurses who work in outlying areas is also an ageing workforce. This will mean that, in order just to maintain current levels, recruitment will need to replace those workers when they retire. We need to rebuild confidence in rural and remote healthcare workplaces. A more stable workforce will go some way towards achieving that, but so far the government has done little to promote it.
This is a government which has cut millions from the Health Workforce Scholarship Program and abolished Health Workforce Australia. Cuts to health workforce scholarships have reduced the number of scholarships being offered. Delays with the Health Workforce Scholarship Program have seen many students commence their studies this year with uncertain funding for future years, and many of these are rural Australia's future healthcare providers.
For all rural people, there has long been an issue with the provision of and access to adequate health services. The remoteness of many locations presents inherent problems that have a direct impact on health outcomes. Greater distances to travel to access or provide services means greater costs to providers and to patients in both time and money compared to people living in cities. Telecommunications, especially a lack of affordable, reliable and fast internet, is a critical issue for most people who might think about moving to a rural or remote area. But a lot more needs to be done to address rural health issues, including ensuring that those rural Australians who cannot afford private health cover do not fall through the cracks. As it is, less than 48 per cent of people in rural and remote regions have private health insurance. This compares with 61 per cent for people living in major cities.
Significantly, people in rural areas are more likely to need the services more readily accessed through private health cover. In the less than four years the coalition has been in office, insurance premiums have risen 23 per cent. I could not believe that: a 23 per cent increase in premiums in less than four years of this government. That gives us some idea of why rural people on low wages cannot afford to maintain their cover. At the same time, the government has frozen the Medicare rebate, increased co-payments, cut $1.4 billion from preventative health and cut bulk-billing incentive payments to pathologists and radiologists. This, of course, affects all Australians, but its impact on rural and remote Australia is where they feel it the most. The national rural generalist pathway will help address some of these issues by providing a greater level of health care in the long run.
I will briefly mention two other aspects of the bill. The bill abolishes the Medical Training Review Panel. Its functions will be absorbed by the National Medical Training Advisory Network, which was established in response to the Health Workforce 2025 report. NMTAN was part of Health Workforce Australia but was moved to the Department of Health when, as I mentioned earlier, the coalition abolished Health Workforce Australia. Each year, a national report on medical education and training will continue to be produced and published on the Department of Health website. This will ensure that stakeholders and state and territory governments continue to have access to this data. The requirement to conduct reviews of the Medicare provider number legislation, section 19AD of the Health Insurance Act, is being removed to reduce the regulatory burden for external stakeholders, such as rural workforce agencies. Since their inception, these sections of the act, section 19AA, 3GA and 3GC, have not changed, despite reviews under sections 19AD in 2002, 2005 and 2010. We consider those last two matters to be fairly uncontroversial and will not oppose them.
The appointment of a national rural health commissioner and the creation of the national rural generalist pathway are positive steps in addressing rural health needs. However, the commissioner could be a much more substantive position; a longer-term position with broader focus has the potential to deliver more for rural Australia. As I have said from the outset, Labor supports this bill. We had foreshadowed our own amendments to address several of the issues with this bill; however, the government has come to the table with their own amendments. Labor appreciates the government's willingness to consider the concerns we have highlighted which were the commissioner's position being abolished without review after only three years; the apparent narrow focus of the role; and, finally, that there was no advisory body to support the commissioner. Broadly, the amendments proposed by the government achieved much of what we were proposing. They are acceptable to us and they do address our main concerns. We, therefore, do not need to move our own amendments. I commend the bill to the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. Let me begin by placing on the record the Greens support for the national rural health commissioner. It is a role that will begin to address the entrenched workforce issues in regional and rural medicine by putting in place a national rural generalist pathway. We welcome the government following through on their commitment to establish the role of the commissioner. We note that this work to establish the commissioner and to establish the national rural generalist pathway has been called for by stakeholders for many years; indeed, it was a commitment that the Australian Greens took to the last federal election. It is long past time that we see some real action on the health outcomes in rural and regional Australia, which do lag way behind the health outcomes of people who live in capital cities.
Right throughout regional Australia, and specifically in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities, health care is woefully inadequate. We need a very clear focus on how we turn this around, and the Greens believe that this is a positive step; this new role does mean that we are taking one step in the right direction. It represents a good starting point for the establishment of the commissioner, and we do recognise the broad support for its passage—as I said earlier—of some key stakeholders, particularly the National Rural Health Alliance and the Rural Doctors Association. I want to recognise their strong advocacy and, in particular, their constructive contribution in relation to improvements to this bill.
We are always happy when the government does listen to stakeholders—sadly it does not do it enough—but it is good that on this occasion it has talked to some of the key stakeholders and is now talking to the Senate. In response to that, it has actually made its own amendments to the bill. Ideally, this place would work better if governments of all persuasions sought the views of members of the crossbench and the opposition before they drafted a piece of legislation. It has always struck me as somewhat curious that a government does not do that, that they do not take into account concerns raised by members of the opposition crossbench. Nonetheless, we are still pleased that they have moved amendments—subsequent to the drafting of the bill—which do improve this legislation.
We will support the bill and the government's amendments. But I will also be moving a second reading amendment, to highlight the Green's view that the issues facing health in rural and regional Australia are extremely complex and they have been longstanding, and that, ideally, the commissioner's role should be an ongoing one. The scope of the commissioner should be broadened further, and they should be given the capacity to provide recommendations over time to address all of the myriad issues that are facing rural health practitioners.
The bill basically establishes this National Rural Health Commissioner, who will be responsible for providing advice to the minister on the role of the rural generalist and the training program or pathway for national rural generalists. Of course, thanks to some of the amendments the government has made to their own bill, they will also have the capacity to provide other advice on rural health reform.
As I said earlier, the Greens support the establishment of the national rural generalist pathway as a really clear recognition of the unique, varied, challenging, exciting, daunting role sometimes facing doctors in rural communities. Having been a doctor who has worked in rural communities, I can say it is an extremely exciting and challenging role. It provides you with the opportunity to be confronted with things that your counterparts who are practising in urban environments rarely see.
There are longer hours; often you are on call around the clock. You have got a very broad scope of work, unlike in capital cities, where things that might be outside the scope of what seem traditionally general practice issues are referred on to specialists. If you are a rural generalist, you have got to be a jack of all trades. It takes in general surgery. You are often involved in obstetrics, emergency medicine, anaesthetics and psychiatry. You work across a gamut of specialties and you need to be on top of all of them, so it is a very challenging role.
The bill requires that the commissioner consult with the health sector and training providers to, firstly, define what it means to be a rural generalist. What is it that sets that pathway apart from ordinary general practice? In doing that, it needs to look at remuneration for generalists so that these particular skills that have been developed over time, the circumstances in which they work with limited specialist pathways for referral and all those other things are recognised.
We are also pleased that the government has listened to stakeholders to ensure that, once the commissioner has worked on this, it can look at some broader issues across rural health. We are extremely pleased to see that the minister has committed in his speech that issues relating to nursing, dental health, pharmacy, Indigenous health, mental health, midwifery, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and other allied health issues will also be considered. It is really important to remember that health in whatever context takes place within a multidisciplinary framework. It is well and good to be focusing on the doctors who provide health care, but there are myriad other heath providers who do equally important work, and it is critical that the commissioner is able to consider issues that affect those allied health professionals.
The bill, however, does set the commissioner role to expire on 1 July 2020. I am pleased that the government has listened to stakeholders and, indeed, to the Greens about the need for an extension to the role to be made in good time before that expiry date and for a clear review of the activities of the commissioner to be reported to parliament as well. It is the view of the Greens that if there is still work to do in rural health reform at the time of the expiry then the commissioner's role should be extended. I think there is the very real possibility that this becomes an ongoing role in helping to continue to work through many of the issues that people living in regional communities face.
We are supportive of this bill because it represents finally some concrete action from the government to address the fact that there are huge disparities in health outcomes between people living in rural and regional areas and those living in metropolitan areas. There is a big gap here, and it is significant. It has been there for a long time, and for too long governments have ignored it. We have heard from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which time and again has detailed this huge disparity. They have reported that Australians in remote and very remote areas have mortality rates 1.4 times higher than those living in major cities. That is a significant gap. If you look at something like coronary heart disease, it is somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 times higher in rural and remote areas. Death rates from diabetes are even worse: between 2½ and four times higher.
Of course, we know that that is linked to disadvantage as well. Many people in rural areas live in areas of high economic disadvantage, but we have a responsibility to do something about the big health gap that exists. We see the rates of many chronic diseases like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, airway disease, asthma, cancer and, of course, mental illness and suicide as significantly higher for people living in regional and rural areas. As I said earlier, because of that variable high socioeconomic disadvantage, we know it is associated with a whole range of risk factors: things like smoking, being overweight or obese, physical inactivity, alcohol consumption et cetera.
Of course, for many of the rates of illnesses that I have described, the lower life expectancy, the higher rates of chronic disease et cetera, we know that, apart from the divide between metropolitan and rural and remote, there is also a much greater divide when you focus on whether someone has an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background.
We should never ignore the fact that in Australia your postcode determines your health status, and we have to change that. It is clear that we need a concerted effort to focus on and invest in clear actions to start to turn these health outcomes around.
One of the key drivers of poor health indicators are the barriers people face to accessing high-quality health services. One of the reasons for that is the shortage of appropriately qualified doctors. That is why this government's commitment to the commissioner and, indeed, the National Rural Generalist Pathway are so important. It finally begins to recognise that the skills these people have should be recognised, and in doing so we should be able to attract more doctors into this rewarding and challenging area of work.
There are so many other issues. It is not just providing people with access to health care. If you look at my first speech, for example, I made it really clear that one of the reasons that brought me into politics was to impact on people's health. It is not just about having a good health system. It is looking at what the social determinants are—access to employment, education and so on. What are those things that contribute to poor health? We know that, when it comes to rural health, there are a number of things that contribute to that disparity. I mentioned some of those risk factors earlier. Yes, it is a lack of services, but it is also a lack of infrastructure, including IT infrastructure. It is isolation. It is not having access to fresh foods. It is all of those things that compound the problem.
There have also been a range of government interventions in recent years which have had a negative impact on access to health care for many people in regional communities, such as the government's freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, which was instigated, it must be said, by the Labor Party, but was continued by this government—indeed, accelerated by this government. It has had a real impact. Over the last 12 months I have spoken to many, many GPs, who say that it has had an impact and that they are struggling to keep their doors open. In country towns across Australia, GP clinics have been put into a very, very difficult position. We do welcome the fact that at least the government is now considering reversing the freeze, and we hope the government will eventually make the right decision.
Then, you add the cuts to dental health. The government wanted to cut to the child dental benefits scheme, and, ultimately, gutted the funding to public dental clinics. Often, in some of the regional areas, the only place you can see a dentist is by going to a public dental clinic. So these cuts have real impacts. We know that, when you cut access to dental care, you do not just impact on somebody's oral health; it can have serious complications for other conditions, like heart disease and stroke.
We have seen the government rip money out of prevention programs and fail to invest in appropriate drug and alcohol treatment services. They have not put a single dollar towards the implementation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan. You have to start recognising that health is an investment. If you do not make that investment it will have ramifications across the system as a whole. Our view is that the health commissioner should be looking not just at workforce issues but also more generally at issues which are leading to poorer health outcomes across Australia.
The Greens are supportive of this legislation. We will support the passage of this bill, but we do restate our commitment to the commissioner having to take a broader look at rural health. The minister called the commissioner a 'champion for rural health' in his second reading speech, and I do look forward to his or her appointment and hope they are genuinely given the opportunity to make inroads on the issues affecting health care in regional Australia. Therefore, while supporting the bill, I move the Greens amendment on sheet 8123:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(1) laments that health outcomes in rural and regional Australia continue to lag significantly behind the rest of the country, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and recognises that the establishment of a Rural Health Commissioner represents an opportunity to examine and address the significant work force issues which contribute to this, as well as the range of other causes; and
(2) calls for the Commissioner to be free to examine and make recommendations relating to all areas of policy reform and funding that are relevant to urgently address this issue"."
Thanks very much.
I am just going to say that I realise time is against us, with the adjournment, but I look forward to speaking on this bill. It is something I am very interested in. This is a really important issue about the National Rural Health Commissioner being established. It will do a lot of good over time. No doubt I will contribute more tomorrow when this bill comes up—if it is on the agenda in the morning.
Debate interrupted.
I wanted to spend some time this evening raising an issue that has stunned the people of the Northern Territory. I have been reading through the Commonwealth Grants Commission: report on GST revenue sharing relativities 2016 update, particularly in terms of what is going to happen in the Northern Territory. This has created a real concern for not only the Northern Territory government but the people right across the Territory about truly understanding what this means.
The Northern Territory is a big place. It is over 135 million hectares. Only about 245,000 people live there. In fact, our population density is one person for every five square kilometres. The reality of life for many Territorians is a life in remote areas. The Territory is certainly a wonderful place to live but not an inexpensive place to live and raise your family. Territorians take these challenges in their stride: living out bush in remote areas, where kids have to move thousands of kilometres away from home to go to high school; relying on the Royal Flying Doctor Service for emergency medical services; and the cost of living.
Now this government has just dealt the Territory a very savage, budget heavy hit—a $2 billion cut to our GST revenues over the next four years. This is an unprecedented cut to the Northern Territory's budget. Let me be clear: the Northern Territory has the smallest population base; the highest level of disadvantaged people; and the biggest deficits in health, education, infrastructure and housing—in particular, in the bush. And the Territory is certainly more reliant on Commonwealth revenue than any other jurisdiction. The Commonwealth revenue makes up around 70 per cent of the Territory's total revenue at 50 per cent untied GST revenue and 20 per cent tied payments.
The principle underlying horizontal fiscal equalisation is that all Australians can expect to receive a comparable level of schooling, access to hospitals, justice services, transport infrastructure and public housing availability regardless of what state or territory they reside in. But that principle seems to have gone out of the window with this $2 billion cut to the Northern Territory. The reality is that this decision treats Territorians unfairly, precisely because of where they live, and this government should recognise that.
I know that the Michael Gunner Labor government are certainly excellent economic managers and are looking at how to shield Territorians as much as possible from these vicious cuts. The Territory Labor government have committed to delivering their election commitments in the face of these cuts, and they will be out there fighting for a better deal for Territorians. The Territory's federal Labor representatives—Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari; Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon; and I—will certainly be fighting for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory and alongside the Northern Territory government.
I call on my fellow senator for the Northern Territory here in the house, Senator Nigel Scullion, to stand with us in standing up for the Northern Territory. It is absolutely critical that he does. He is the only member in the federal government cabinet, and he must stand up for the people of the Northern Territory. It is certainly an opportunity for Senator Scullion to show leadership and to prove to the people of the Northern Territory that he does have their best interests at heart by showing that he is prepared to go toe to toe with the Treasurer and to fight to ensure economic development opportunities for the people of the Northern Territory.
What impact will a $2 billion cut have on programs and services for people? We know what that is going to do. This brutal cut will have incredible impacts on closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage. We stood in the house here only a month ago to talk about closing the gap in life expectancy, health and education for Indigenous people in this country, and we know that that is still an enormous challenge in the Northern Territory. How is it that we could experience, just in the 2014 Tony Abbott budget, a $500 million cut to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services across Australia, which has been particularly felt in the Northern Territory? On top of that were the cuts to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and the difficulties that the IAS has been found to have in terms of what that program is doing across Australia. The Auditor-General's report showed some severe concerns around the IAS, another blow to the people of the Northern Territory. It really is a budget double whammy for Indigenous Territorians especially.
When we look at the development of northern Australia and how the federal government wants to push the growth of northern Australia, one questions how that is going to be really possible, especially now, with this significant cut to the GST for the Northern Territory. We talk about the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Since that program was announced in the 2015 budget, we have not seen one red cent hit the ground in the Northern Territory. Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner and Treasurer Nicole Manison are certainly going to be knocking on doors here in Canberra, and they are going to be looking to us to help them to get a better deal.
In the few minutes that I have left, I want to just highlight some of the things of concern for me in relation to the Commonwealth Grants Commission report. Lots of questions still come from this—questions that still need to be answered—and these are largely in relation to the indicators that the Grants Commission uses, like community health, the taxable payrolls and the Commonwealth payments. Which of the roads in the Northern Territory is it referring to? There are more questions that come from these pointed statistics, in particular about the decline in school enrolment.
I think that, again, we know the challenges in trying to get our kids to school across many of our remote regions in Australia, and it is no different in the Northern Territory. What does this mean when we talk about the reduction in school enrolment and how that is then linked to the decline in GST revenue? These are the things that the people of the Northern Territory want to understand. What is the fall in the enrolments? Where did those enrolments take place? How were they measured? I know that ACARA is one indicator that the Grants Commission has used, but when was this taken?
In terms of the population growth, looking at the decline in the population growth, when was that measured? How was that taken? Are we talking about the population of the whole of the Northern Territory or specific places? There are so many unanswered questions that still come from this report, which I will certainly be keen to ask over the coming days.
On reflection, in terms of the roads, we certainly know about Infrastructure Australia and the funds that come into the Northern Territory in the Commonwealth payments. How is it that we can, on the one hand, as a territory seek to be funded for the best of roads and transportation to be able to get food into the communities and have bridges built so that there can be access and yet, because we have received a certain amount of funding to build that infrastructure, it is then taken away with the other hand? These are the things that do not seem to add up.
The question of fairness is one that will certainly be asked over coming days. We will certainly be asking about all these things from the commission's report.
I rise to speak tonight on the astonishing events of just a week or two ago in the Western Australian election: the end of the Roe Highway, the end of the Perth Freight Link and the end of the Barnett government. As many of you know, the fight against the Roe Highway was quite personal for me. I spent a long period of time in my early twenties living at Bibra Lake and around the Beeliar Wetlands—it was a part of the world that I really came to love—and I presently live in North Fremantle, at the other end of the proposed freight link. It has been an absolute honour to stand side by side with those who have defended this extraordinary place. Some people have been at this for 30 years. I know that, if you live in a particular part of the world and you step up in its defence, they call you a NIMBY. If you travel across town or across the world to stick up for somebody else's backyard, they call you a rent-a-crowd. It does not matter, really, what names they call you as long as you prevail, and in this instance we did.
We said that that project was going to be something of a referendum. We said that the state election, after eight long years—or slightly more than eight years—of the Barnett government, was going to be a referendum, and of course it was. Most eyes were on Senator Hanson, this incredibly oddball assemblage of candidates that she managed to scrape together for the Western Australian state election and an extraordinarily high vote that was being foreshadowed in polls. A lot of political attention and heat and light was being burned up around Ms Hanson and how her colleagues might do in the state election. But, actually, we know from opinion polling and from long experience in Western Australia that the Roe Highway project was something of a slow burn. In the weeks before the election, it was listed in a Fairfax poll as the second most likely issue to swing your vote. So, while a lot of national eyes were on the progress of Senator Hanson and her somewhat unusual colleagues, in Western Australia actually there was a lot more focus on what was happening with this project.
The results really speak for themselves, with a catastrophic swing that completely obliterated the Barnett government. There was a 15.9 per cent uniform swing and they now hold just 13 lower house seats out of 59. One of the more gratifying moments for me was Albert Jacob's abject and entirely appropriate fall from grace as probably the worst minister for the environment that we have ever had in Western Australia. He was utterly derelict in his duty. I do not know if he just played golf for eight years or what on earth he got up to, but he certainly was not there for the environment, and he has been rewarded with the result that we saw on Saturday, 11 March. The election also claimed the seats of Liberal MPs in electorates that were meant to benefit from the Perth Freight Link—suburbs like Bicton and Jandakot. These were the people who were meant to benefit and they saw right through the line that was being spun and the hideous political advertising that was running on the front page of local papers in the run-up to the election. People saw right through it and they voted with their feet.
In contrast, of course, the Greens had a wonderful win in the state election and it is my pleasure to acknowledge that tonight. Under the steady and genius hands of Sophie Greer and Andrew Beaton, the steady guardianship of our co-conveners, Trish Cowcher and Troy Treeby, and with the help of hundreds of volunteers, we saw our most effective field campaign, a really rich policy platform and outreach to multicultural communities across Perth, who were hurting and fearful about the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, and we saw our primary vote rise to nine per cent. Maybe most pleasingly, we doubled our representation in the state upper house from two to four seats and we now share the balance of power. My friends Tim Clifford, Alison Xamon and Diane Evers and, of course, my old mate Robin Chapple in mining and pastoral, who seems simply undefeatable in that part of the world, are four great members who I know are going to make us very proud in state parliament. But it is impossible to go further without acknowledging our incumbent and much loved member for the South Metropolitan region, Lynn MacLaren, who was very narrowly not re-elected this time around. On behalf of all of us here, I am proud to be able to say thank you to Lynn and to her staff, who threw everything that they had at this campaign. Lynn was loved in the area and will be much missed, and it is incredibly ironic, poignant and deeply unfortunate that Lynn, who presided over and made such an important contribution to the ultimately successful campaign to stop the Roe Highway project from going through, now will not be able to spend the next couple of years in parliament looking over the state Labor Party's shoulder and making sure that they actually hold to their commitments around cleaning up and rehabilitating that site.
We know that that campaign was won on the ground by incredibly tenacious campaigning. The work that we were able to do here in parliament in the Senate inquiries, one of which I want to speak to briefly, I think made an important contribution. Ultimately, this win did not belong to the politicians at all; it belonged to neighbourhood organisers, to ordinary people who stepped up, to environmental campaigners and to the environmental mob, who spoke out for country and culture and, just for a change, people stopped and listened to them. They were protecting really important archaeological areas and an important trail leading up from the south-west. We know that these lakes and the areas around them are sacred sites—or they were until the Barnett government, in a fit of spite, delisted hundreds and hundreds of Aboriginal heritage sites. So it was community organising and grassroots campaigning that won the day. As controversial as it has been in this last two weeks, it was nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience, holding up work day after day, breaking the law and copping the consequences, not running away from the consequences. When they see this kind of hideous destruction unfolding before their eyes and they know they have evidence that the contractors are breaking the law and the environmental conditions that have been set down are not worth the paper they are printed on, some people take it on their own conscience to break the law—to step onto the site, to trespass and to try and impede work. And, if Senator Bernardi does not like it, that is just too bad. One day maybe we will see an issue close enough to his heart that he would take that step as well. It is a step that people do not take lightly and it does have consequences, but I congratulate and celebrate the people, including some very close friends of mine, who did take that step in defence of this extraordinary place.
We established a Senate inquiry, with the support of the Labor Party and most of the crossbenchers, on the back of evidence that the construction of that site was occurring in breach of environmental management plans set down by both state and federal ministers. The evidence that we heard was utterly compelling. Day after day, contractors, being paid for by Main Roads through Western Australian and Commonwealth taxpayers' money, were breaking the law and violating those environmental conditions set down by the state and federal governments. That is why there is absolutely no sadness in my heart tonight that minister Albert Jacob lost his job, because he was beyond incompetent; he was actually doing everything he could to enable this project when his singular mandate was to protect and look after the environment.
The Barnett government never had a mandate for this dog of a project. The companies involved—Leightons, now trading as CIMIC because of the brand damage they incurred due to widely reported international corruption and bribery; AECOM; BGC; and WA Limestone—are all implicated, taking the dollar on a deeply unpopular project such as this. It does have consequences. Some of these entities were in active and very deliberate breaches of management plans—that is, they were breaking the law. They showered the local community and local school with dust and asbestos. They caused extraordinary carnage and injury to protected species. They acted like complete cowboys. All of this was happening in broad daylight, because the wetlands watchers had their eyes on them basically 24/7, since mid-December, when earth moving equipment was first put on that site.
I would like to thank the amazing and patient Christine McDonald and Colby Hannan from the committee. I know the committee is stretched at the moment. They still made time to get to Perth to hear evidence directly from people who had an important story to tell. I would like to thank Alison Wright and the Coolbellup Concerned Residents, who were forced to step up and defend their community against asbestos and dust impacts. I would like to thank Phoebe Corke and Andrew Joske, and the Wetlands Watchers, who bravely took on the job that the EPA had basically abandoned. I would like to thank Kate Kelly and Kim Dravnieks, in particular, who are really powerful and tireless leaders of the Save Beeliar Wetlands and Rethink the Link campaigns. They are really powerful, staunch women. Thank goodness they were on our side. I would like to thank the City of Cockburn and the City of Fremantle mayors Logan Howlett and Dr Brad Pettit, who stepped absolutely above and beyond on behalf of their residents and ratepayers. I would also like to thank the Cockburn Wetlands Education Centre, Native Arc and the Beeliar Group of Professors, particularly Professors Richard Hobbs and John Bailey, as well as the black cockatoos expert, Dr Hugh Finn, who basically just buried the government's evidence on that day when they gave evidence.
I cannot finish up here tonight without paying my enormous respects to my friend and dear colleague who put their absolute heart and soul into this campaign, whether it be estimates against the machine, questions on notice, Senate orders, freedom of information requests, legals or media backgrounds. There are thousands of people who deserve thanks and commendation for stepping up for this gorgeous place that we can now go back to and visit and help with the healing process, but it is my pleasure to acknowledge tonight one in particular, Chantal Caruso. You sure are going to be missed around here, but Maori seedlings have now sprouted on their own on that site, and we know that within a couple of hundred years that site will be back to its former glory.
Senate adjourned at 22 : 09